Propaganda or Panacea The Vaccination Special


The popular adult cartoon South Park just aired their "Vaccination Special" to inject some humor into the rather serious topic of mass vaccination which has only come up a few times in our human history.

When I think deeply on this topic in order to have perspective beyond an animated reality the thoughts that come up are twofold: risk and reward.

We don't have to over complicate the issue with all sorts of political mumbo jumbo. It's just "what are the potential risks?" and "what are the potential rewards?" or the particular medical intervention.

I consider any "shot" with a needle a rather invasive procedure which I would prefer to avoid when possible. Some people have seemed to just blindly accept a shot without necessarily knowing what is even in the shot or what it might do years down the line but maybe you're more like me and have more skepticism about these things and would prefer to know the risks. In previous posts I've covered the ingredients in these shots so you can review those here to dig deeper in that topic.

Before we get deeper into the whole risk/reward concept let's address the elephant in the room which is the testing and the rate of false positive results and how that is driving the interest in these shots to begin with.

Back in September of last year Dr Mike Yeadon, semi-retired from his 30 year career in pharma and biotech began whistleblowing about some anomalies that were being spread in the media causing widespread (and misplaced) fear.

Clearly I'm not quoting Dr Yeadon because it is recent news but only to help articulate a point that may be important for your decision about whether these shots are going to be a panacea or are actually just propped up with propaganda.

In one publication he explained some of the mortality figures:

While paying close attention to data, we all initially focused on the sad matter of deaths. I found it remarkable that, in discussing the COVID-19 related deaths, most people I spoke to had no idea of large numbers. Asked approximately how many people a year die in the UK in the ordinary course of events, each a personal tragedy, They usually didn’t know. I had to inform them it is around 620,000, sometimes less if we had a mild winter, sometimes quite a bit higher if we had a severe ’flu season. I mention this number because we know that around 42,000 people have died with or of COVID-19.

While it’s a huge number of people, its ‘only’ 0.06% of the UK population. Its not a coincidence that this is almost the same proportion who have died with or of COVID-19 in each of the heavily infected European countries – for example, Sweden. The annual all-causes mortality of 620,000 amounts to 1,700 per day, lower in summer and higher in winter. That has always been the lot of humans in the temperate zones. So for context, 42,000 is about ~24 days worth of normal mortality. 

He then goes on to explain some things about the PCR testing and rates of false positives. Keep in mind that PCR testing, which it's been used in some interesting ways in the past and the inventor of that test Kary Mullis was awarded a Nobel prize for his invention, it's never been used as a diagnostic tool before.

The way I explain that when asked what that means is that someone should already be known to be ill before the test is every taken!

Then the PCR test is done to see if some sort of sample (whether saliva or other bodily fluid) matches a particular pathogenic sample when "amplified" on what they call a polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Because the sample is amplified so much it brings in a bunch of noise or random data so the "cycle threshold" should be kept low in order to minimize the random data and lower the number of false positives.

But most importantly, as inventor Kary Mullis insisted, the test should NOT be used for diagnostics! In other words it won't tell you that you are "sick" or going to be "sick" or that you were "sick".

So this is where all the "cases" come from. These aren't sick people just counts from a test that is misleading at best. As Dr Yeadon explains quite well:

Part of the ‘project fear’ that is rather too obvious, involving second waves, has been the daily count of ‘cases’. Its important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I’ve spoken to, the word ‘case’ has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don’t doubt there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I’m confident it is not important.

That all said, Government decided to call a person a ‘case’ if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person’s sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they’ve had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered.

And regarding false positives consider what Dr Yeadon said:

The important thing is to know how often this happens, and this is called the false positive rate. If 1 in 100 disease-free samples are wrongly coming up positive, the disease is not present, we call that a 1% false positive rate. The actual or operational false positive rate differs, sometimes substantially, under different settings, technical operators, detection methods and equipment. I’m focusing solely on the false positive rate in Pillar 2, because most people do not have the virus (recently around 1 in 1000 people and earlier in summer it was around 1 in 2000 people). It is when the amount of disease, its so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. This problem can be so severe that unless changes are made, the test is hopelessly unsuitable to the job asked of it. In this case, the test in Pillar 2 was and remains charged with the job of identifying people with the virus, yet as I will show, it is unable to do so.

Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold.

Please keep in mind that Dr Yeadon, at least before publishing all of this information, had an extensive career in the Pharmaceutical and Biotech industry helping develop drugs and is former Chief Scientific Officer for Pfizer! This is not just me saying this stuff!

To sum it up statistics in this "pandemic" have been quite interesting to watch and it doesn't stop with just "cases" based on a PCR test. Death numbers have been all over the place and with the many reports (such as illuminated by Dr Scott Jensen in Michigan) of mislabeled death certificates to preferentially state "Covid-19" on the death certificate regardless of the real cause of death simply because there may have been a recent positive PCR test truly renders the statistical death numbers rather useless.

To further this point an analysis earlier this year (2021) of CDC data pinpointed a drastic increase in reported deaths from both Covid as well as All Cause for the weeks at the end of 2020 and in early 2021:

An examination of the weekly death tolls, published by the CDC on Jan. 29 and Feb. 1, for the five weeks ending between Dec. 19, 2020 and Jan.16, 2021, may adversely impact President Biden's promise, in his Jan. 21 "COVID Strategy Report," of providing Americans with non-political, scientifically-driven, data about this pandemic.

This table shows the weekly death tolls on Jan. 29, 2021:

Week Ending COVID Deaths Deaths All Causes
12/19/20 18,020 72,086
12/26/20 15,365 66,404
1/2/21 10,719 57,344
1/9/21 6,540 45,724
1/16/21 3,899 37,622

This table shows the updated death tolls on Feb. 1, 2021:

Week Ending COVID Deaths Deaths All Causes
12/19/20 19,857 74,271
12/26/20 19,292 71,081
1/2/21 17,706 65,381
1/9/21 16,164 55,973
1/16/21 13,779 48,997

With all this manipulation of data and public perception is there any need for a vaccine?

This is where the story comes back to the risk / reward ratio and in order to answer this question the "reward" part of that equation really must be worked out. In order to really put this into perspective the other gorilla in the room must be addressed and that is the convenient rebranding of "flu" as "covid-19" in 2020.

We saw this in the HIV epidemic when long standing diseases were conveniently rebranded as "AIDS related infections" despite the literal impossibility that ONE virus with the small amount of genetic material that a virus has could possibly be responsible for approximately 29 diseases. I will address this HIV / AIDS topic in more detail in a future post.

Even the NY Post reported the anomalies in reported deaths from Covid:

The CDC itself caused a stir at the end of August by estimating that the virus directly caused only 6 percent, or now just over 11,000 of the 187,000 attributed deaths. Most of these deaths were in the elderly.

The remaining 94 percent died with and not exclusively of the coronavirus. These people also were on average elderly and had 2.6 other health problems. This implies a good fraction who succumbed had three or more comorbidities. In other words, most deaths attributed to the coronavirus were in very sick people.

So at that rate the current numbers quoted of around 550,000 deaths from Covid would equate to 33,000 deaths that could be directly attributed to the virus.

So if only 33,000 people have actually died from this virus this sounds like a statistic which I recall hearing but don't have a reference on (sorry) which is that only about 10-15% of people who are diagnosed with "the flu" actually test positive for influenza virus. In this case we're talking about actually sick people, so they have the symptoms of the flu like a runny nose, sore throat, etc. and when tested most don't show positive for an influenza virus.

If that's the case why would anyone get a flu shot? What are you protecting against if the majority of individuals with the syndrome don't seem to have that virus?

And that brings us full circle back to coronavirus and the idea of getting a shot for that.

Inflated numbers might scare an uninformed public into having a demand for an untested, experimental vaccine but since you are still reading this it's sure likely you are not one of those individuals.

After all the potential reward simply can't be high enough. Even if one is to believe the statistically inflated efficacy numbers from such companies as Pfizer and Moderna that tout a 90% effectiveness level what is that 90% effective at doing?

Most people don't even know the answer to that simple question!

Unfortunately the reality of that 90% number is hidden in what's called "relative risk" and this is in stark contrast to "absolute risk" which is the number we should really know but is not reported at all in the headlines.

Relative risk in a nutshell is simply a comparison by ratio of how many people got sick in the vaccinated group VS the control group. So out of tens of thousands of test subjects if only about 200 got sick why are we even considering a potentially dangerous experimental vaccine for protection?

But of those 200 if 190 of them were in the control group and 10 in the vaccine group they would compare those two numbers and say it was 95% effective. No proof of stopping an infection just comparing risk groups and ignoring the thousands of potentially injured and deaths ( associated with adverse events from the vaccines that weren't even counted in these 200 subjects.

A 39-year-old woman from Ogden, Utah, died Feb. 5, four days after receiving a second dose of Moderna’s COVID vaccine, according to CBS affiliate KUTV.

Kassidi Kurill died of organ failure after her liver, heart and kidneys shut down. She had no known medical issues or pre-existing conditions, family members said.

KUTV uncovered the death as part of its investigation into COVID vaccine side effects. The investigation involved looking into reports submitted by Utah residents to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, there were four deaths in Utah reported to VAERS in January and February, including Kurill’s.

KUTV reported that doctors at Intermountain Medical Center recommended Kurill’s family request an autopsy, and the family agreed.

The point here is that there are real risks even to healthy individuals that are getting these shots and a relative risk assessment in a short 8 week clinical trial does nothing to clarify a real informed decision on whether it makes sense for you to get this shot or not.

To conclude here and end with the latest breaking news on this subject PhD vaccine developer from Belgium Geert Vanden Bossche has this week revealed some very important information about immune response as it relates to vaccines. Keep in mind that, again this is a source that is definitively "pro-vaccine" who is speaking out against the current vaccines for Covid-19 simply because he considers them the wrong tool for a pandemic situation.

Now this stuff gets into very geeky science so as a prelude to it here is a related video. This is a comedian Eugenio Derbez grilling Dr Anthony Fauci. Finally someone is asking him great questions that he struggles to address:

Pretty funny seeing Dr Fauci squirm in his seat trying to answer these hard questions about the Emergency Use Authorization vs FDA "Approval" and overall effectiveness of the shots.

Now on to the serious stuff. Geert Vanden Bossche PhD has sent out a warning about the current Covid-19 vaccines. Basically what he is saying is that they are rewriting the software of your immune system with high antigen specific antibodies and therefore they won't be able to prevent immune escape. Innate immunity will be overwritten when subjected to these vaccinations because the antigen specific antibodies will out-compete the NK cells which should provide non-specific general immunity.

He warns that they are not safe for mass vaccination in the "heat of a pandemic" and has written a paper which I will post below - but first this is a recent interview which explains his point in rather clear English:

And here is his paper:

Please share your thoughts about this subject in the comments below and if you've found this report to be useful go ahead and share it with your friends wherever you think they'll notice it!

Featured Photo By L00KING closer now
Kary Mullis Image courtesy of: TEDxOrangeCoast
Pharma Image courtesy of: DES Daughter
PCR Test Image courtesy of: GoToVan

Dr Michael Yeadon:
Death Toll Data:
NY Post reference:

Share The Knowledge!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Knowing The Truth Topics

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram