CNN Fires Three Employees for Coming into the Office Unvaccinated
hollywoodreporter.com
hollywoodreporter.com
Did the ending of the placebo control group after 2 months, nearly 2 years early, raise permanent red flags? Yes. Is there a significant chance that the vaccine will apply selective pressure to the virus leading to an escape variant? It's an interesting topic, I recommend exploring some of the lit and the current trends with Delta.
Now, back to the news media. Pfizer and Moderna alone will bring in over $50B this year. The budget for every news organization in all of America amounts to $10B. CNN's budget is < $1B. Is it plausible that the vaccine industry is applying financial incentives to folks at CNN to promote max vaccination? Given CNN's writings about the vaccine, often clearly false, I would be shocked if this weren't the case. I suspect for CNN the max-vax money must be a gold rush.
To make more money. Do you know there is clear and abundant data that giving the recovered the vaccine provides zero benefit? Not only theoretically, but empirically too, in all countries, across the vaccine trial data and real world data. But if 1/3 of Americans are recovered, that would drop vaccine sales by 33%. Even worse, it would make the vaccine look less effective, as by giving the vax to the recovered it juices the numbers so that a smaller % of people get COVID post vax. A 33% drop in vaccine sales would amount to tens of billions of dollars in lost profits. So a rational actor would easily spend more than $10B in PR costs to promote max-vax.
This is just how the publishing/media industry works. Even when industries aren't explicitly buying ads, they are paying PR firms to inconspicuously plant Op-Eds and nudge editorial. Not unique to Big Pharma or vaccines. Moderna or Pfizer themselves don't even have to be involved! Outside shareholders can indepdently pay for the PR dirty work.
What's interesting with vaccines is how blatant it is. Caused me to reevaluate the importance to abolishing copyrights, giving everyone the right to be a publisher, and removing the monopoly power of our current media. It's disgusting how true knowledge is stifled and lies are propped up. It's much harder to propagate lies when there are millions of capable publishers, not just 10.
But a vaccine provides 0 benefit (0 with a capital "Z"), if you've recovered. It's an absolute no brainer that this is the case. If your body wasn't capable of learning an immune resistance from actually having the virus, then vaccines wouldn't work. When public health figures claim that recovered should get vaccinated anyway, even though it goes against theory, empirical data, and clinical trial data, you have to question their credibility. Then you look at their dissolution of the placebo control group. Then you look at their decision to stop tracking breakthrough cases. None of this is acceptable. One must have high standards.
When you have an idea in engineering and you think it's amazing, you have to keep measuring and questioning that. If your data shows that it's not as amazing as you claim, the solution isn't to hide evidence, it's to keep going, keep measuring, and try harder.
[1] Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History - Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-...
The scientific literature supports your position, see [1][2]. In fact there is no benefit to vaccinating these individuals, at least nothing published in the literature yet (please share links if anyone has evidence otherwise).
> Is there a significant chance that the vaccine will apply selective pressure to the virus leading to an escape variant? It's an interesting topic, I recommend exploring some of the lit and the current trends with Delta
Here are some great resources to learn about this topic [3][4][5][6][7][8]. If you're new to this topic try starting with [6]. Otherwise [3] is an accessible paper to jump into. [8] gives you an idea how this could play out, with evidence from chickens.
> Is it plausible that the vaccine industry is applying financial incentives to folks at [BIG MEDIA] to promote max vaccination?
I have no peer-reviewed references for this (yet), but to those reading please share if you do!
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
[3] Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33909660/
[4] SARS-CoV-2 immune evasion by the B.1.427/B.1.429 variant of concern https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/30/scie...
[5] mRNA vaccine-elicited antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and circulating variants https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6
[6] Why does drug resistance readily evolve but vaccine resistance does not? https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.2016...
[7] The adaptive evolution of virulence: a review of theoretical predictions and empirical tests https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/c...
[8] Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fj...
Quotes from [1]:
- "The notable evolution of neutralizing breadth after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the robust enhancement of serologic responses and B cell memory achieved with mRNA vaccination SUGGESTS that convalescent individuals who are vaccinated should enjoy high levels of protection against emerging variants without a need to modify existing vaccines."
- "No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size. The experiments were not randomized and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment."
In summary [1] shows that "Vaccination increases all components of the humoral response" [1]. This is well established in the literature, and not really up for debate.
However, the mistake you're making is jumping to the conclusion that higher neutralizing titre levels (or antibodies, anti-RBD IgG, etc) are inherently more beneficial. This has not been demonstrated in the literature yet, and it's extremely difficult to determine at what level someone is "protected enough".
Here's a direct quote from the article you linked to, supporting this fact:
- "At the moment, the quantity and vigour of a person’s neutralizing antibodies are the best markers for assessing whether that person is protected from infection and illness — although scientists are still working to confirm that antibody levels can serve as a realistic stand-in for immune protection."
> Your first two citations merely suggest
The evidence provided by [2] goes well beyond "mere suggestion", with statistically significant findings and N = 52,238.
Quote from [2]:
- "The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated"
[1] Naturally enhanced neutralizing breadth against SARS-CoV-2 one year after infection https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03696-9
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/may/12/jerome-cor...
Fauci isn't an inventor or owner of any COVID vaccine patents.
Even if Fauci was an inventor on them, his patents would be owned by the Federal Government. By Federal Law, inventors of government patents are entitled to a maximum royalty of $150k/year.
>> I've heard that Dr. Fauci is a partial owner on some patents
> Fauci isn't an inventor or owner of any COVID vaccine patents.
Why take the time to argue a tiny subpoint of my point, by erecting a strawman and linking to a fact checker that is political by its very nature..
Which spends the first half of the page attempting to discredit the supposed author of the point, and then, hilariously, admits that, in fact, Fauci is listed as inventor of at least four patents, even if possibly unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines etc, and the so-called fact checker even said they actually reached out to NIAID for comment on those patents and never heard back.
The real question is why you are so afraid of the vaccine, so as to promote FUD? Or is it just displaced fear from a virus demonstrating that you’re not quite as in charge of your life as you thought?