LEAVE YOUR NOMINATION: https://www.corbettreport.com/5th/ You’ve been waiting for it all year and now it’s finally here! The Dinos are back as The Corbett Report prepares the 5th Annual Fake News Awards for January 28th, 2022. Do you have a fake news story, a fake video, a fake photo, a fake fact check or a fake anything else that you want to nominate for this year’s awards? Corbett Report members are invited to log in and leave their nominations in the comments below.
Geert Vanden Bossche, Robert Malone and Dr. Vladimir Zelenko talk with Australian politicians about Covid-19
Watch on Source: Covid 19 Experts Meet Australian Politicians
Need help? Email us here: firstname.lastname@example.org
Join my PRIVATE exclusive ad-free, censorship-free video platform: http://www.peggyhall.tv
Join the shows: “THE HEALTHY AMERICAN MORNING” Mon-Thurs 10:30 am Pacific “PEGGY TO THE RESCUE” Mon-Thurs 3:30 pm Pacific
Get my PERSONAL help with your religious exemptions here: https://www.thehealthyamerican.org/re… Now enrolling! Limited spaces, don’t miss out!!
Cards, letters and donations are gratefully received here: Peggy Hall 205 Avenida Del Mar No. 681 San Clemente, CA 92674
Since winning the 2020 election, the Biden administration has put every resource they had at their disposal to fight the COVID-19 virus. Lockdown, social distancing, mask mandates, COVID-19 jab promotions. Incentives after programs, the Democrats battled on every front, listening to the advice of the famed doctor, Anthony Fauci. But as Laura Ingraham said on a recent taping of her show on Fox News, the Biden administration has been wrong countless times regarding COVID-19. Ingraham even detailed how public health officials continuously spread false information, yet people still listen to their advice. Wanting to understand why the host invited Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on the show to discuss the new documentary called Planet Lockdown.
In the documentary, experts revealed how the pharmaceutical companies pressed the World Health Organization to change the language around what makes a pandemic, a pandemic. Speaking in the documentary, German physician and epidemiologist, Wolfgang Wodarg, explained how the wording around the pandemic has led to the fear and hysteria surrounding COVID-19.
One of my nurse friends forwarded this note to me. It was originally written by a nurse, but the source is unknown, probably out of fear of retribution.
Among all the vaccines I have known in my life (diphtheria, tetanus, measles, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis, meningitis, flu, and pneumonia, and tuberculosis) I have never seen a vaccine that forced me to wear a mask and maintain my social distance, even when you are fully vaccinated.
I had never heard of a vaccine that spreads the virus even after vaccination.
I had never heard of rewards, discounts, incentives to get vaccinated.
I never saw discrimination for those who didn’t.
If you haven’t been vaccinated no one has tried to make you feel like a bad person.
I have never seen a vaccine that threatens the relationship between family, colleagues and friends.
I have never seen a vaccine used to threaten livelihoods, work or school.
I have never seen a vaccine that would allow a 12-year-old to override parental consent.
After all the vaccines I listed above, I have never seen a vaccine like this one, which discriminates, divides and judges society as it is.
And as the social fabric tightens… It’s a powerful vaccine! It does all these things except IMMUNIZATION.
If we still need a booster dose after we are fully vaccinated, and we still need to get a negative test after we are fully vaccinated, and we still need to wear a mask after we are fully vaccinated, and still be hospitalized after we have been fully vaccinated, it will likely come to “It’s time for us to admit that we’ve been completely deceived.”
I think she forgot to mention that she’s probably also never seen:
Continued on Source: Observations from an experienced nurse about the COVID vaccines
By Brian C. Joondeph, M.D.
American Thinker January 19, 2022
Vaccine mandates are one of many stifling measures brought on by the ongoing COVID pandemic, a consequence of those trying to “follow the science” and doing anything but or of government and bureaucrat officials using the opportunity to flex their authoritarian muscles. Whether they serve a useful societal function is an open question.
The CDC website cites a book chapter by research scholars Kevin Malone and Alan Hinman that describes vaccine mandates as a means of “drastically reducing infectious diseases in the United States.” Mandates present a challenge “when societal interest conflicts with the individual’s interest.” With vaccine mandates, there is the assumption that “Increased immunization rates result in significantly decreased risk for disease.”
According to the chapter,
Although no remaining unimmunized individual can be said to be free of risk from the infectious disease, the herd effect generated from high immunization rates significantly reduces the risk for disease for those individuals. Additional benefit is conferred on the unimmunized person because avoidance of the vaccine avoids the risk for any adverse reactions associated with the vaccine. As disease rates drop, the risks associated with the vaccine come even more to the fore, providing further incentive to avoid immunization. Thus, when an individual in this common chooses to go unimmunized, it only minimally increases the risk of illness for that individual, while conferring on that person the benefit of avoiding the risk of vaccine induced side effects.
Herd immunity, a term that can get one banned from social media and polite society, is the key. Both vaccines and natural infection can achieve herd immunity. Once herd immunity is reached, the risk-benefit ratio pivots from less benefit for every last person being vaccinated to more risk from vaccine adverse effects. This is the logical way infectious diseases have been approached in the past, until COVID apparently changed relatively settled science regarding vaccines, masks, distancing, and mandates.
The above premise assumes that the vaccine in question prevents contracting and transmitting the underlying infectious disease. Or as the chapter describes, “An important characteristic of most vaccines is that they provide both individual and community protection.”
Are the COVID vaccines providing both individual and community protection? If they are, then a case may be made for vaccine mandates although that is debatable. If not, then such mandates make no sense.
An excellent person to ask is Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, the largest COVID vaccine maker. In a recent Yahoo Finance interview, Bourla let the cat out of the vaccine bag,
And we know that the two doses of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The three doses, with the booster, they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths—and, again, that’s, I think, very good—and less protection against the infection.
“Limited protection if any,” is not a strong endorsement. It’s a polite way of saying two doses of the vaccine don’t work as previously described and promised. And with a booster, the protection becomes “reasonable.” He didn’t say robust or excellent, only reasonable, meaning that there is limited benefit. And it’s a benefit to the individual, not to other people.
An umbrella provides “limited protection if any” in a hurricane and a raincoat offers “reasonable” protection but, in both cases, you will get soaked and blown around.