So usually anyone who says vaccines are bad is an anti-vaxxer and frowned upon. But boy oh boy in this piece, you're gonna raise your eyebrows because my guess is over 80 percent of you are going to be shocked when you hear what the Wall Street Journal says about vaccine makers and the rigging of studies and the rigging by the CDC And boy oh boy it is disappointing. Let's get into exactly what was just revealed because originally when the vax came out, everybody's like you gotta have the facts. otherwise you know you're an anti-vaxx or whatever and there are a few things that are incredible that's going on.

First of all, there's this video that's that's circulating on uh on Twitter I like this uh, the reason I liked it is just so you could go into my Twitter history and see what I like is sort of extra context, but it's basically the Pfizer CEO getting confronted by some reporters and he's just super silent. Now, that doesn't actually mean anything in itself, but it does reiterate this: Narrative of wait a minute. what's going on with big Pharma And are they rigging data to potentially mislead people about covet boosters and covet vaccines? And this is a big problem because it's, well, for them, extremely profitable. but for us, it's our health.

And one of the things that's wild is if you look at the continent of Africa it is the least vaccinated continent that exists and guess what? they're not having a coveted crisis. It's weird, but then again, hey, you know what? Maybe it's just an outlier, but what is not an outlier, is what the Wall Street Journal editorial board just put together. Now look, mainstream media, you always want to have a little bit of a skepticism, right? But let's put it this way: the Wall Street Journal editorial board, you know, probably has some reason to be uh, incentivized by big Pharma right? I Mean, at least that's what we might assume, right? Think about it. Wall Street Journal A Pfizer and moderna massive companies on Wall Street right? Well, what we've got is a piece that goes completely counter to that idea.

And this is probably one of the most damning pieces I have seen by The Wall Street Journal And it was put together by and not the editorial board, but a board member of the editorial board. So just one of the people from the editorial board. But it was pretty remarkable. So the Wall Street Journal and a member of their editorial board is going out of the way to say the deceptive campaign for bivalent covid boosters I'm just going to read you some of the big pieces here.

Okay, so I went through this. I'm just giving you the bottom line here. The message sponsored sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services claims that updated bivalent vaccines will improve your protection. However, the Wall Street Journal suggests that we're at least this member of the editorial board suggests that this is deceptive advertising public Health's establishment.

Praise for the bivalent shots shouldn't come as a surprise though, because Federal agencies took the unprecedented step of ordering vaccine makers to produce these vaccines and recommending these vaccines and boosters without data supporting their safety or efficacy. And this is where they get into some arguments. The idea of updating mRNA coveted shots every season originally held promise. One advantage of mRNA technologies that manufacturers can tweak the genetic sequence and rapidly produce new vaccines targeting new variants.

That's what we've been told since November of 2020.. hey, these vaccines. You can update them. They're great as a result.

Now we have new vaccines targeting Ba4 and Ba5 Omicron as well as the original Uh a Wuhan strain. But three problem s have come up. They say First, the virus is evolving faster than vaccines can be updated. Second, Vice viruses are the the vaccines are hardwired into our immune system.

This has to do with imprinting. We'll explain that in a moment, and the actual benefit of the vaccines Uh, or the boosters is waning rapidly, often within a few months. Now this is interesting because two Studies have come out this month showing that the Uh basically the the bivalent boosters didn't actually do much more than the original boosters to help fight covet. Now what's interesting about that is: Uh.

There's this argument that there's immune imprinting happening that's making it harder for these vaccines to actually respond to Uh to these new variants. In fact, look at this study and I'm going to try my best to explain this. I'm no scientist or doctor here, but look at this slide from A in one study, antibody levels after the bivalent boosters were 11 times as high against the Wuhan variant as against Ba5. So let me try to explain in printing for a moment.

So the idea of imprinting is that your body. Let's say, this is your body right here. gets injected with a vaccine that sees a virus that looks like this right here. The spike protein is generally what's being modified, so that way your body can identify that as an intruder and antibodies attack them.

Well, let's say the blue thing here is the Wuhan virus, right? That's what you first saw. Your body gets really good against defending against the Wuhan virus. Well, now you inject it with. Hey, here's the other one.

Here's the red one called, uh, you know, Ba5. We'll call that one b and let's say your body creates a ton of antibodies for the Wuhan virus, the blue and then you get injected with the the Ba5 or Ba4 vaccine variant and your body does this. It adds one antibody for Ba4 or five and then it adds a bunch more Wuhan virus antibodies. In other words, your body is basically just reiterating its protection against the original strain and not the new variant.

and this is like this biological phenomenon. Or maybe it's not a phenomenon because it's study. But but then again, a lot of things in biology are still theories. Uh, and and this imprinting phenomenon put in a technical phrase and I pulled this up I pulled up immune imprinting in the SARS Cov2 vaccine design and I pulled this up Uh, one of the studies I could find.

You can see the details here, just kind of glossing along a little bit to go a little faster here. But immune printing is a phenomenon whereby initial exposure to one virus strain effectively primes the memory of your body and limits the development of other antibodies or new minor strains. And this is basically suggesting that these new modified vaccines are actually substantially less efficacious against future variants than the original variant. And despite this, despite this finding by multiple studies which The Wall Street Journal is highlighting, listen to this: The studies and the findings contradict what Pfizer and moderna are asserting.

So in other words, the studies studies are saying the new stuff ain't working Pfizer and modern are like what are you talking about It's four to six times as as effective as the original booster. But the Wall Street Journal says these claims are misleading because neither vaccine maker has actually conducted a randomized trial. and when I read this I'm like, wait, what? Like you have to do randomized trials to tell us something is safe and they're not conducting those now. I'm taking the Wall Street Journal's word for that.

Instead The Wall Street Journal Here says the companies Pfizer and Moderna tested the original booster's Last Winter Long before the Ba5 and Ba4 surge, Four to six months after trial participants had received their third shot, the bivalence by contrast uh began to Surge nine and a half to eleven. Let me go to it. Nine and a half to 11 months after recipients received their third dose. A longer interval suggests the shots would increase antibody levels more to a recent injection in.

in other words, I'm going to try to explain that really quickly. The old studies they were doing uh to show like sort of a contrast only had like a four month interval and they compared that four month interval to shots given nine months later, which basically says look, of course, if you've waited longer to get another shot, you're going to see a larger boost in antibodies than if you've recently had one, right? Roughly, the longer interval between shots would increase the antibody boost. The vaccine makers designed their studies to get the results they wanted. This is like scary.

I mean I I Get it because they're a for-profit institution, right? But I Don't want to think that the vaccine makers who are injecting stuff into our bodies are basically rigging the studies now. I I Get it? A lot of you may be like uh, duh, Kevin wake up but like, do we have to be that cynical throughout our lives And apparently the answer is yeah, yeah, this is scary. Love you to read that again. The vaccine makers designed their studies to get the results they wanted.

Public Health Authorities didn't raise an eyebrow, but why would they? they have a vested interest in promoting by Valence. The FDA ordered the vaccine makers in June to update the boosters against Ba-4 and 5, and rushed in late August to authorize the bivalent boosters before clinical data were available. The CDC recommended by Valence for all adults without evidence that they were actually effective. This is insane.

In other words, the CDC in August in late August is like Quick Print them. We'll approve them, just make them, and we'll approve them. But the results for the uh, uh. the only small randomized studies that they've actually conducted wouldn't actually be available until over a month a month later.

But Public Health Authorities didn't want to wait, and now we know why. Because when the actual studies came out after the CDC recommended them, the study showed that bivalence were only 22 to 43 percent effective against Ba5 at their Peak as antibodies waned as new variants took over later in the fall, and then their protection against variants basically dropped to zero. So in other words, you're taking these boosters and you're maybe really only getting like one to two months of benefits because of immune imprinting. The CDC is lying to us, saying they're safe and effective when the studies haven't even come out to show they're safe and effective.

Okay, like my understanding of safe and effective was a safe, but let's put that on the table for a moment because we could talk myocarditis all day long. But let's just stick on number two: Effective. My understanding of an effective vaccine is a vaccine that's actually like 55 plus percent effective. and that's already pretty poultry.

But my understanding of safe, effective, safe, and effective was 55 to 70 effective at their Peak. The studies show these bivalent vaccines are only 22 to 43 effective, yet the CDC is telling us no, they're safe and effective. But what? Another CDC study in December reported seniors who received the bivalence were 84 percent less likely to be hospitalized than the unvaccinated, and 73 percent less likely than those who had received two or more boosters of the original vaccine. but neither study controlled for important factors.

Number one: the small minority of people who get the bivalence were probably also more likely than those who hadn't to follow other coveted precautions or seek out treatments like Pacslovid. So in other words, maybe you got coveted, but you have access to Pax Love it. Or maybe you're still socially distancing. or you're you know, whatever to try to prevent yourself.

Maybe maybe you're healthier, maybe you're trying to. Whatever the point is, no controls in the study actually showing a higher rate of efficacy. This is why is the Wall Street Journal having to expose this like the CDC should be? The organization that's like, hey guys, we we got to step up. Like the quality of research we're doing here, It's not happening.

It's in. This is embarrassing for the CDC and again I Know many people are just rolling their eyes right now like Evan we knew this two years ago. I I Get it? Okay, this just came out from the Wall Street Journal though, and we are covering it to bring light to it to those who still have not seen that light. A study found that, uh, look at this.

A study found that unvaccinated individuals were more likely to get into car accidents. But that doesn't mean that car accidents prevent car crashes or that vaccines prevent car accidents. There's a growing consensus that we need better vaccines and treatments to protect those still at risk, but we also need honest Public Health Leaders Oh what a mic drop. What a freaking mic drop That's intense this is.

and look, you all know me as Mister in the middle. It's not because I don't want to take an opinion, it's because I believe that. uh, most of us want neutral information stuff that isn't biased to one side or another. and I think that 80 percent of us can agree that after what we just saw, the CDC sucks ass like that's a pisser man.

that is a pisser. I think eighty percent of us agree and go, yeah, man, that doesn't look too good. Maybe maybe there's an explanation, but that doesn't look too good. Okay, I think 80 plus percent of us can agree.

I Mean maybe even 100 of us agree. Uh, but uh wow. Damning bad and disgusting.