WHY Does The CDC Want To JAB Your CHILD When Others DON'T?
What could motivate this break from other major world governments?
If we were to line up all of the major public health agencies across the globe and say the word “Vaccine,” two would drop to their knees and start salivating.
No one simps for jabs quite like the FDA and CDC. Even as countries like The UK, Japan, Germany, and even Australia, among others, no longer recommend the jabs for children (indeed, many even limited their recommendations of the general non-high-risk public to 65 and older), our Centers For Disease Control and Prevention not only do, they want to stick ‘em as young as 6 months old!
Now, I can hear you say, “Jack, that’s no big deal, it’s only a 54 and-a-half year difference in their reasoning — you can hardly notice!”
And if I were counting Pharma Benjamins, I’d say fair point.
Still, some of the sweet summer children clutching their faith in these agencies might hear this news and reasonably ask, “How could other countries be failing like this? Surely the CDC is basing these recommendations on science! So, what do we know that they don’t?”
Well…
In June of this year, the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee met to discuss the need for a new monovalent vaccine. Among those reporting information toward this cause was the CDC itself.
The agency started by demonstrating just how bad the old jabs are. You see, to the surprise of no one, the original monovalent Wild Type (Wuhan) jab doesn’t do anything anymore, certainly not against XBB. This makes simple sense given that those jabs targeted the original spike protein, which has long since adapted to evade immune response.
“But what about the bivalent?” the more astute of you may ask. “They tested those on a few mice, so they were obviously safe and effective!”
Not so, dear reader. You see, that was then, and this is the time for a new jab, so they totally suck now.
Well, actually, they always kind of sucked. As it turns out, through a series of charts, the CDC highlighted just how ineffective these vaccines ultimately were (especially when compared to the lofty promises we were fed) and how quickly what efficacy they did have dropped off.
Seriously, they literally made a case against the previous jabs.
But it only gets worse.
While the “VISION Multi-State Network of Electronic Health Records” show the previous jabs as being barely effective in preventing hospitalization and critical illness against the XBB, IVY (The terribly titled: Investigating Respiratory Viruses in the AcutelY Ill) presents a much grimmer picture:
For those who have no clue what all this gibberish is, you want to look at how the lines on the right side intersect with the unity line (zero). The dot and lines indicate the confidence interval of efficacy.
What that means is, if the line reaches zero, there’s no efficacy.
And that means going below it implies the jabs make you more likely to be hospitalized — this is called “negative efficacy.”
To wit, by their own data, the CDC presented a case that both the Wild Type monovalent and Omicron bivalent jabs were more dangerous to public health in the long run, vis-à-vis XBB, than not taking the jab at all. Best case scenario, it simply does nothing; worst case, you’re more likely to catch it and suffer a more severe outcome.
Again, this is intended to make the case that we need a new jab, yet, curiously, in presenting these data, they also inadvertently admitted that even though they had evidence as far back as June that these jabs were potentially making things worse, they opted instead to double down on their promotion of them…until now.
“Yeah,” I hear you say, “but that’s just the CDC, what did the actual pharmaceutical companies bring to the table?”
Well, they certainly did present the case that their respective XBB jabs are efficacious (which by the way means “demonstrated effective in a lab environment,” as opposed to “effective,” which in-turn relates to “a real-world environment”).
According to Pharma, it’s all gravy baby!
Like the CDC, Pfizer came out of the gates shitting on the old jabs. Granted, their rhetoric wasn’t particularly aggressive, but their data sure are. Here, we can see, yet again, that after enough time the jabs dip into negative efficacy in hospitalizations, specifically for a curiously broad age range of 18-64.
So, not good, but that’s the old cow. We’re here for the shiny new iJab! And how does that square up?
To answer this question, Pfizer did preclinical trials on…
*Checks notes*
Er…
20 mice, ten per group.
Well, hey…at least it’s 12 more than last time!
Naturally, none of these pharmaceutical companies would be making presentations if they couldn’t at least show some positive data supporting their jabs. And the data do show that the updated jabs are more efficacious than the failing Omicron bivalent and monovalent Wild Type, which should be expected for literally anyone paying attention — new tech is sooo much better than old tech, ya’ll!
Yet, are ten mice per group really enough to have a clear answer of what the jabs bring, either in efficacy or reactogenicity?
To that point, let’s see what Pfizer’s actual clinical data, the human testing, shows—ha ha, fuck you!
Pfizer doesn’t offer any clinical data.
Like, literally none. They just say, “Yo, it’s all good bro. Trust me bro. Would I lie?” And leave it at that.
Seriously, look for yourself. You can’t make this shit up.
But no red flags here, I’m sure it just slipped their minds. And hey, it’s not like it’s pertinent anyway, they could have just dropped this as their evidence—
—and the FDA would’ve passionately applauded, wiping a tear from their eye with nodding approval.
Meanwhile, Moderna showed efficacy in preclinical data on mice (they don’t say how many), but their actual clinical data was limited to just 101 humans (n=50 XBB monovalent, 51 Bivalent BA4/5 + XBB monovalent).
Props to them for at least including that data though. That truly was a high bar, albeit one that Novavax likewise failed to achieve.
Following Pfizer’s direction, the latecomer’s recombinant vaccine was similarly shown efficacious against the modern variants…in preclinical animal trials. To their credit, Novavax did take it a step further than Pfizer by testing not only on mice but macaques. Still, that’s where the studies apparently end.
To put all of this into perspective, the original Pfizer Phase 3 trial for the Wild Type monovalent included 46,331 human participants. But who’s keeping track?
Well, why are the jabs not only waning, but potentially more dangerous in the long run? The current theory is “Immune Imprinting.” Essentially, your immune system is trained to detect a pathogen and react a very specific way — it remembers this (via memory B cells), even after antibodies are cleared out of the system. When the immune system detects a similar pathogen, it may just continue reacting the same way, which will put it at an inevitable disadvantage.
To say it another way, immune imprinting is like playing a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, but sending out Rock over and over because it won that one time.
Won’t take long for the other player to adapt…
Vaccinated Immune System, circa 2023, colorized
To be fair, immune imprinting can occur after natural infection, but this isn’t apples to apples. Meta analysis published in The Lancet found natural immunity to be robust and long lasting (granted, not tested for XBB). Whereas the jabs focus on one specific protein (which does keep adapting toward evasion), natural immunity is far less picky in viral identification. Yet, even if they were apples to apples, while the ideal situation is no virus and no jab, chances are damn near everyone, including you, reading this now, has had the virus regardless of the jabs. So, this discussion is functionally no longer a simple dichotomy of confronting Covid via being Vaxxed v. Immunonaive.
More to the point, if imprinting reliably occurs via vaccination, it is a serious blow against their risk/benefit profile.
Speaking of risk/benefit ratios, did ya’ll notice something missing through all of this? No, not Pfizer and Novavax’s clinical data, something else. Something…relevant.
Oh, that’s it! Not a single contributor here, including the CDC, offered any mention of adverse reactions.
I wonder why?
Regardless, the FDA observed all of this and was like…
That brings us back to the CDC, who, on September 12th, released their updated Covid-19 Vaccination Recommendation, in which they puff out their pom poms and “recommend” you to give Pharma “a P, give ‘em an R, give ‘em an o-f-i-t!”
What does that spell?
Something other countries can’t pronounce, apparently.
As I said at the top, they want everyone a day over half a year old to get these things.
But what’s informing this decision?
Clearly “the science” brought by the CDC shits on the old jab-paradigm, and “the science” brought by Pharma is littered with flaws (small sample sizes, lacking clinical data, no exploration of adverse effects, absolute absence of RCTs, etc.). Is this what differentiates the US from other major countries across the globe?
Before I respond to that, let’s remember the facts here.
Despite their best efforts at a memory-hole, our government and health officials absolutely did promise that the jab would end the pandemic. They said you wouldn’t get Covid, even though Pfizer never even tested for transmission.
Even more egregiously, they continue to downplay adverse events (including their current studies), despite mass reporting globally, as well as a consistent trend in excess (All Cause) deaths, which are reportedly predominant in highly vaxxed countries.
To be crystal clear, thanks to the FDA’s report, we now have evidence that not only do they not stop the virus, the jabs might actually make things worse in the long run, and while most other countries are moving away from jabs altogether in the general populace, both the FDA and CDC can’t keep their panties dry after limited tests on a handful of mice.
If you were to ask how these jabs could get clearance with such little testing in the first place, one might point to the previous testing on the original Wild Type vaccine. The implication has been that because they already did studies on the Wuhan virus, there are no need for future studies because they’re only changing the RNA. This is utter nonsense that might convince the layfolk, but even if we play along, there are two massive elephants in the room:
First, according to the CDC itself, it will take 1 million shots in 12-17 year-olds to prevent less than a hundred hospitalizations, less than twenty ICU admissions, and “0-1” deaths (which is likely still an overestimation).
Yet, all of these come at the consequence of 1,000 severe side effects from Pfizer, and 1,500 from Moderna per million, according to an independent secondary analysis of the original trial data — you know, that early trial data that everyone so reliably leans on to call the jabs “safe and effective.”
Hell, there’s data out of Western Australia that found the rate is closer to 2641 severe adverse reactions per million, and that’s not even mentioning all the short-term side effects like fever and nausea, or those who are forced to lose days just from being knocked on their ass.
It’s important to note that “severe adverse reactions” include such events as stroke, heart attack, death, etc. So, the CDC is prepared to risk 1,000 of these to alternatively prevent, say, maybe 19-95 kids going to hospital from Covid.
That’s…some strange math, and that’s assuming their projections are even accurate, as kids have consistently been the least impacted by the virus. In fact, a Pfizer funded study was recently published that, despite the authors’ best efforts at obfuscating the fact, indicates the jabs didn’t even work for children under 5.
And the sad truth is, we still don’t know how many fatalities that may result from these jabs. For some reason, the broader medical community seems hesitant to take a good, hard, honest look at this issue.
So, if we’re going to cite the original trials as reason to stop testing, well, that still paints a terrible picture.
Second, if immune imprinting is happening with the jabs and they’re producing a long-term net-negative, how can we be sure this additional one, as well as all future iterations, won’t continue the trend, or worse, exacerbate it?
The fact is, not only do we not know, but the CDC is fine with it regardless.
Now, I’m no genius being funded by Big Pharma, but none of this seems like a solid risk/benefit ratio to me. It certainly is good for their profits, as both Moderna and Pfizer, earlier this year, declared plans to quadruple the price of the shots (which the US government will subsidize whether we take them or not), but what’s a price tag worth when it comes to public health?
Unrelated: Did you know 9 out of 10 FDA Commissioners between 2006 and 2019 went on to secure high paying roles in big Pharma companies?
Comically, the most recent (Scott Gottlieb, the now-Pfizer Board Member and CNN sweetheart) blocked me on X (previously Twitter) for my article exposing corruption under his purview at the FDA as well as the general agency itself.
But I digress.
So, what does the CDC and FDA know that other world governments don’t?
I’m beginning to wonder if maybe the difference isn’t science, but rather something with a bit more buying power. I dunno, color me skeptical.
What I will say is that I’m getting hints of abusive-relationship gaslighting here.
They certainly seem to want to make these jabs the new normal, and they’re more than happy to push that first jab on kids who’re just getting their first tooth and starting on solid foods.
Look, I still stand by my original position that this should all be a matter of choice between yourself and your doctor. I support anyone who believes these jabs are what’s right for them and I’ll fight for their ability to get them. I’m a proponent of Evidence Based Medicine, after all.
I’m also an ardent supporter of the Nuremburg Code, and the US government’s approach to Covid, especially with its backdoor coercion/mandates as well as shifty “studies,” censorship, and deception, have clearly broken that code like a Taiwanese whore at a powerlifting convention.
To that, I say the science does not abide.
Even if those sweet summer children do…
Thanks for reading.