This afternoon Dr. Robert Malone and Peter Navarro have an important new article out. I find it perhaps the most cogent opinion piece so far, and undoubtedly the most trenchantly and comprehensively accessible articles that I've seen.
It's also notable that a world class scientist who has gained some public stature in spite of strenuous attempts to cancel and discredit him has now taken a significant new step. Malone has teamed with a former high Trump administration official and is specifically addressing this blast against the Zhou regime's Covid policy. Note that Zhou's strategy is, in fact, something of a doubling down on what Trump started. Clearly Malone believes now that Zhou has assumed ownership and that there's no hiding from responsibility at this point. For that reason, Malone's attack is twofold: He takes on the unscientific underpinnings of the strategy, but he also addresses the politics of the strategy by forthrightly labeling its implementation as "authoritarian." In my view, this is sure to raise Malone's profile--a good thing:
Vaccination 'arms race' could prove dangerous to the American public
Malone and Navarro launch a full assault on the most cherished myths of the Establishment and Prog Group-Think. You'll get some idea of the type of sacred cows they skewer when I tell you that they refer to both Ivermectin and HCQ positively.
Malone's critique of the Zhou regime's misguided strategy revolves around four core assumptions--most of which were doubtful to begin with and all of which are now clearly false.
Excerpts--but please follow the link to this important article:
The Biden administration’s strategy to universally vaccinate in the middle of the pandemic is bad science and badly needs a reboot.
This strategy will likely prolong the most dangerous phase of the worst pandemic since 1918 and almost assuredly cause more harm than good – even as it undermines faith in the entire public health system.
Four flawed assumptions drive the Biden strategy. The first is that universal vaccination can eradicate the virus and secure economic recovery by achieving herd immunity throughout the country (and the world). ..
The second assumption is that the vaccines are (near) perfectly effective. However, our currently available vaccines are quite “leaky.” ...
The third assumption is that the vaccines are safe. Yet scientists, physicians, and public health officials now recognize risks that are rare but by no means trivial. ...
Unknown side effects which virologists fear may emerge include existential reproductive risks, additional autoimmune conditions, and various forms of disease enhancement, i.e., the vaccines can make people more vulnerable to reinfection by SARS-CoV-2 or reactivation of latent viral infections and associated diseases such as shingles. With good reason, the FDA has yet to approve the vaccines now administered under Emergency Use Authorization.
The failure of the fourth “durability” assumption is the most alarming and perplexing. It now appears our current vaccines are likely to offer a mere 180-day window of protection – a decided lack of durability underscored by scientific evidence from Israel and confirmed by Pfizer, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other countries.
Here, we are already being warned of the need for universal “booster” shots at six-month intervals for the foreseeable future. The obvious broader point that militates for individual vaccine choice is that repeated vaccinations, each with a small risk, can add up to a big risk.
It’s an arms race with the virus.
The essence of this arms race is this: The more people you vaccinate, the greater the number of vaccine-resistant mutations you are likely to get, the less durable the vaccines will become, ever more powerful vaccines will have to be developed, and individuals will be exposed to more and more risk.
If the entire population has been trained via a universal vaccination strategy to have the same basic immune response, then once a viral escape mutant is selected, it will rapidly spread through the entire population – whether vaccinated or not.
For much of the rest of the population, there’s nothing to fear but fear of the virus itself. This is particularly true if we have lawful outpatient access to a growing arsenal of scientifically proven prophylactics and therapeutics.
For example, there has been much controversy over ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Yet, with the emergence of a growing body of scientific evidence, we can be assured these two medicines are safe and effective in prophylaxis and early treatment when administered under a physician’s supervision. Numerous other useful treatments range from famotidine/celecoxib, fluvoxamine, and apixaban to various anti-inflammatory steroids, Vitamin D, and zinc.
The broader goal when administering these agents is to moderate symptoms and take death off the table, particularly for the unvaccinated. Unlike vaccines, these agents are generally not dependent on specific viral properties or mutations but instead mitigate or treat the inflammatory symptoms of the disease itself. (Pfizer is now actively marketing its own antiviral therapeutic – tacit admission Pfizer’s own vaccine is incapable of eradicating the virus.)
We are simply saying that just because you have a big vaccine hammer, it is not necessarily wise to use it for every nail. The American people deserve better than a universal vaccination strategy under the flag of bad science and enforced through authoritarian measures.