Alex Berenson

2021-09-15 21:14:36 But Britain - which had a very strict and economically damaging lockdown last year - has essentially given up on lockdowns and other national control measures. Over the weekend, or even dropped the plan for a vaccine passport (though it has since backtracked a bit).

Now Reuters reports British physicians are warning the vaccines don’t work well enough to allow the country to return to normal: (2/4) Open / Comment

2021-09-15 21:14:22 Open / Comment

2021-09-15 21:14:04 This new piece from Reuters - hardly a outpost of anti-vax fanaticism - should terrify vaccine advocates.

And, honestly, scare the rest of us.

A reminder: Britain has pursued a mass vaccination strategy as aggressively as any country. It approved Pfizer’s vaccine even before the FDA. More than 80% of Britons over 16 are now fully vaccinated.

But Britain is in far worse shape than it was at this time last year, when no one was vaccinated. It is now averaging about 140 deaths a day, roughly 10 times as many as mid-September 2020. And hospitalizations and deaths continue to rise. (1/4) Open / Comment

2021-09-15 21:13:50 British doctors now openly beg for more lockdowns because they say they can’t rely on vaccines Open / Comment

2021-09-15 21:13:38 The most damning article about vaccines yet Open / Comment

2021-09-15 21:08:31 The FDA just released its briefing book for Pfizer’s request for a third dose of Comirnaty (or is that BNT162b2? No matter! It’s approved either way, sorta).

It is every bit the mess we all expected.

Let’s go to the highlights:

Pfizer basically hasn’t bothered to test the booster AT ALL in the people actually at risk - it conducted a single “Phase 1” trial that covered 12 people over 65. The main Phase 2/3 booster trial (beware efforts to cover multiple “phases” of drug research at once, you want it bad you get it bad) included no one over 55.

No one.

As in NONE.

Which makes total sense - why test the booster in people who actually need it because they’re at high risk from the ro? Nothing good can come of that.

So that’s our trial design.

Now safety:

Of the 300 people who received the booster, one had a heart attack two months later. No worries, Pfizer concluded it wasn’t related. Yay!

Five percent of recipients had enlarged lymph nodes.

How about effectiveness?

Well, we don’t have enough data - or any data, really - telling us how well the booster will work.

But the FDA made Pfizer go back and review its data from the pivotal clinical trial from last year. Pfizer compared people who received the vaccine with those who received the placebo and THEN the vaccine (the best we can do at this point, since Pfizer blew up the trial by giving placebo subjects the vaccine, double-yay!)

Pfizer concluded that your annual risk of getting Covid-19 IF YOU ARE VACCINATED is about 7 percent.

Further:

“An additional analysis appears to indicate that incidence of COVID-19 generally increased in each group of study participants with increasing time post-Dose 2 at the start of the analysis period.”

Oh.

But don’t worry, Uncle Joe already told you you can get your booster on September 20. If it’s good enough for our fearless leader, it should be good enough for the FDA, amirite?

SCIENCE!

SOURCE: https://www.fda.gov/media/152176/download Open / Comment

2021-09-15 21:08:13 They want booster approval based on studies covering about 300 people - with no control arms. BUT IT GETS BETTER. They tested it in 12 (yes, 12!) people over 65. Open / Comment

2021-09-15 21:08:00 Are you kidding me, Pfizer, volume 1 gazillion Open / Comment

2021-09-13 22:31:41 I hadn’t even considered this, but of course he’s right. He mentions 10 terrible Supreme Court rulings below. Most - including, of course, Plessy - have been stuffed in the dustbin of history, where they belong. The left loudly cheered their reversal.

But Jacobson - a 116-year-old ruling about a virus roughly 100 times as deadly as Sars-Cov-2 - must be preserved forever and forms the core support for a mandatory vaccination scheme.

Makes total sense.

All the happy talk about Jacobson/vax has really been bothering me, so I went back and looked at the period surrounding this alleged Jewel of the Enlightenment.

Between Dred Scott and the New Deal court, the Supreme Court continuously held that individuals had few if any rights as individuals. The vax decision [Jacobson] sits squarely in the middle of a timeline where nine white men in robes loudly scoffed at the idea that there was anything more important than the sheer brute power of business and government.

Check out the line-up of horrific cases that surround the alleged "mandatory vax is permissible" law.

Who would want to live in a time and place where this kind of legal thinking held sway?

1883: "Racial discrimination is awesome" - Civil Rights cases [8-1]

1895: "Monopolies are awesome" - US v EC Knight [8-1]

1896: "Separate but equal" - Plessy v Ferguson [7-1]

1905: Jacobson v Massachusetts [7-2]

1905: "Workers do not have and cannot have any rights vis-a-vis their employer" - Lochner v New York [5-4]

1917: "You can go to jail for questioning the government" - Debs v US [9-0]

1919: "You can go to jail for speech we don't like" - Schenck v US [9-0]

1918: "Child labor is A-OK" - Hammer v Dagenhart [5-4]

1923: "Minimum wage laws are illegal" - Adkins v Childrens Hospital [5-3]

1927: "Your Fallopian tubes belong to us" - Buck v Bell [8-1] Open / Comment

2021-09-13 22:31:21 If you like compulsory vaccinations, you'll love child labor and the Espionage Act
A reader makes a terrific point about the context of the 1905 Jacobson Supreme Court decision (which upheld Massachusetts's right to force smallpox vaccinations)... Open / Comment