Thursday, August 5, 2021

A Misguided Covid Arms Race?

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:

Biden team’s misguided and deadly COVID-19 vaccine strategy

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.


  1. It’s hard to read this and not think of mass vaccination as a vehicle for more restrictions.

  2. Finnish firm earns US patent for Covid drug containing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine

  3. "This strategy will likely prolong"

    I think that's the goal here. There are no bad assumptions. It's all deliberate.

    1. Really the reasons are down to "Because we said so."

  4. ME: UK gov, should I get vaccinated if I already had Covid?
    UK gov: “Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had

    ME: Oh, okay, we don’t know how long natural immunity lasts. Got it. So, how long does vaccine-induced immunity last?
    Uk gov: “There is still a lot we are learning about C0VID-l9 vaccines and we are constantly reviewing evidence and updating guidance. We don’t know how long protection lasts for those who are vaccinated.”

    Me: Okay … but wait a second. I thought you said the reason I need the vaccine was because we don’t know how long my natural immunity lasts, but it seems like you’re saying we ALSO don’t know how long vaccine immunity lasts either. So, how exactly is the vaccine immunity better than my natural immunity?
    UK gov: …

    Me: Uh … alright. But, haven’t there been a bunch of studies suggesting that natural immunity could last for years or decades?
    UK gov: Yes. Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study.

    ME: Ah. So natural immunity might last longer than vaccine immunity?
    Uk gov: Possibly. You never know.

    ME: Okay. If I get the vaccine, does that mean I won’t get sick?
    Uk gov: Nope. We are just now entering a seasonal spike and about half of our infections and hospital admissions are vaccinated people.

    ME: Oh, okay. Hmm. Well, if I can still get sick after I get the vaccine, how is it helping me?
    Uk gov: We never said you wouldn’t get sick. We said it would reduce your chances of serious illness or death.

    ME: Oh, sorry. Alright, exactly how much does it reduce my chance of serious illness or death.
    Uk gov: We don’t know “exactly, we think we've saved over 50,000 lives, but we haven't got any evidence of this.

    ME: Oh. Then what’s your best estimate for how much risk reduction there is?
    Uk gov: We don’t know, okay? Next question.

    ME: Um, if I’m healthy and don’t want the vaccine, is there any reason I should get it?
    Uk gov: Yes, for the collective and to be allowed to dance at a night club (for now)

    ME: How does the collective benefit from me getting vaccinated?
    Uk gov: Because you could spread the virus to someone else who might get sick and die.

    ME: Can a vaccinated person spread the virus to someone else?
    Uk gov: Yes.

    ME: So if I get vaccinated, I could still spread the virus to someone else?
    Uk gov: Yes.

    ME: But I thought you just said, the REASON I should get vaccinated was to prevent me spreading the virus? How does that make sense if I can still catch Covid and spread it after getting the vaccine?
    Uk gov: Never mind that. The other thing is, if you stay unvaccinated, there’s a chance the virus could possibly mutate into a strain that escapes the vaccine’s protection, putting all vaccinated people at risk.

    ME: So the vaccine stops the virus from mutating?
    Uk gov: No.

    ME: So it can still mutate in vaccinated people?
    Uk gov: Yes.

    ME: Sorry but this seems confusing. If the vaccine doesn’t stop mutations, and it doesn’t stop infections, then how does me getting vaccinated help prevent a more deadly strain from evolving to escape the vaccine?
    Uk gov: You aren’t listening, okay? The bottom line is: as long as you are unvaccinated, you pose a threat to vaccinated people.

    ME: But what KIND of threat??
    Uk gov: The threat that they could get a serious case of Covid and possibly die.

    ME: Didn’t you JUST say that the vaccine doesn’t keep people from catching Covid, but prevents a serious case or dying? Now it seems like you’re saying vaccinated people can still easily die from Covid even after they got the vaccine just by running into an unvaccinated person! Which is it??
    Uk gov: Your just obviously an anti-vaxxer!

    1. Ah... Critical thinking skills, the scourge of group think!!!

      I wish more had them!

  5. People who refuse to vaccinate won't be allowed to vote--unless they accept mail-in ballots for everyone.

  6. The unvaccinated won't be able to vote--unless they accept universal mail-in ballots.

    1. "The unvaccinated won't be able to vote--unless they accept universal mail-in ballots. "

      The unvaccinated might burn down the polling places and post office so nobody gets to vote.

    2. Paraphrasing Jim Mora:

      Ah -- voting? Don't talk about -- voting? You kidding me? Voting? I just hope we can have another election!

    3. Paraphrasing (then Tampa Bay Bucs head coach) John McKay during their 0-14 season when asked by a reporter, "What do you think about the execution of your team?"

      McKay responded, "I think it would be a good idea."

      Execution of our elections was always what the Dems had in mind.

  7. Two links....

    ‘The Vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission of Covid’…says CDC Director Walensky. Well, the whole vaccine development thing was a waste of time.

    Another reason I will never trust the 'vaccine' abuse by the NIAID.

    1. About Walensky, the CDC director - or, I should say, about her husband, who is now in fat city with the U.S. government. Big grants to his new company, which is said to be unorthodox…

    2. Walensky’s husband’s new company - Lytica Therapeutics - is “an early-stage biotechnology company working on an innovative platform for developing next-generation antimicrobials”.

    3. What's the point in being a government official if you can't help family and friends? It seems to be the American family friendly way.

    4. Right. And wifey Walensky has the platform and the acting chops to present anything she says while looking terrified and on the verge of a scream… She is a world class fearmonger….

  8. I keep getting sent presentations by Dr. David Martin such as the one below. Has anybody vetted the guy? He certainly sounds knowledgeable and seems to have evidence that he can adduce. It would be interesting to hear a dialogue between he and Dr. Monroe.

    1. Unfortunately, distressingly, Dr. David Martin sounds very credible to me and what he presents is very penetrating and very hard to ignore. ex. Baric email in Nov 2019 noting the transfer of the spike protein technology to Moderna for vaccine development... Mark A Nuremberg Code.

    2. Scrolling way down to the end of that linked presentation gets you to another presentation - on David Martin. Down there, no MD is with his name. He may have another doctorate.

      He sounds like another guy with opinions who writes books.

    3. As opposed to having opinions and writing a blog? :-)

      Here's an opinion--the virus exists. No matter what else we may say about it, it's real.

    4. He never presents himself as a medical doctor and he shouldn't need to. What he does present is evidence that he invites us to verify, like dates of applications for patents, public statements by officials. He also describes problems getting the DOJ to act which correspond perfectly to what we all have observed re RUssia Gate, election 2020, insurrection 2021, hunter Biden, Epstein, ..yadayadayada,and which corresponds to just about everything Sundance has been saying for years now. None of what he said on the face of it contradicts anything I've heard at UKColumn or out of the mouth of Dr. Malone. Here's an opinion-crime and fraud exist and are happening right now. Because the elite has dispensed with the rule of law by politically corrupting the judicial branch of government(along with a great many other parts) we have little hope of justice for this or any other crime fauci et al have committed or will commit. Mark A.

    5. While I don't disagree with your conclusion, presenting certain data is a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

      For example, I've seen that Daszak quote before. It interested me. However Martin's conclusory statement:

      "That is collusion. That is racketeering."

      is not just incorrect, it's very ignorant. "Collusion" is a loaded word that can cover just about any form of coordinated activity, and it is not criminal without additional facts that constitute a crime. Without those additional facts there is therefore no racketeering. Martin is obviously a complete dumbass regarding legal matters.

      If you can show me the elements of a specific crime from THE ACTUAL DASZAK QUOTE, please do so. You may disagree with Daszak re the need or even the advisability of developing pan-influenza and or pan-coronavirus vaccines--I do--but seeking to "increase public understanding" is not "collusion" and it's not criminal. It's protected free speech. Coordinating efforts to "increase public understanding" of your views is likewise not a crime--absent proven criminal intent.

    6. I meant Dr. Robert Malone (not Monroe). I looked up several of the patents that Martin mentions in other videos and they exist and appear to pertain to the subject matter he claims they do, but I am in no way capable of determining the legitimacy of his claims. There is also the question of whether or not Covid has been "isolated" (what exactly does this even mean?). This is an argument that I have seen bandied about for 18 months but have never seen anyone who I trust (Malone, Yeadon, Vanden Bossche) answer it definitively.

      Leave aside Martin's assertions that there is a criminal conspiracy to murder hundreds of millions of humans. What is all the mumbo-jumbo about whether or not the virus has been isolated. If it has been, does that mean that Martin can be considered as having failed vetting as a source?

      I'm still confused.

    7. What I believe he's arguing re 'isolated' is that Fauci and others knew well before January, 2020, that there was a coronavirus disease going on in Wuhan and maybe elsewhere. He argues, as I understand it, that this shows that Fauci is lying about when Covid was first discovered and 'isolated'. He may be right about that--there's been plenty of evidence (from travelers to Wuhan, for example) that Covid was loose as far back as maybe Oct. This isn't news, and it can be interpreted in various ways--none of which reflect well on Fauci or Daszak and the others. There's no doubt that they're lying and covering up malfeasance. But note: He's not actually saying that Covid has NOT been isolated. He's using the coverup evidence NOT to question the existence of the virus per se but to suggest a broader criminal conspiracy. Again, he may be right, but the quote from Daszak doesn't prove that. Public advocacy for public health policies may be misguided as policy but it remains protected speech.

  9. Common supplement NAC is an effective prophylaxis and treatment for covid.

  10. I have been taking NAC for several years - a tablet any time I take Tylenol. Per a naturopath I’d been seeing. Having heard Dr. Lee Merritt mention it as part of her “Covid Kit”, I am now taking one daily whether I take Tylenol or not.

    Thanks for the article link. I am printing it off so that I can study it.

  11. Does anyone else find it interesting that this site has been down since yesterday?

    I had been there prior and was going to send a copy of their preventative methodology to a friend of mine whose wife is undergoing chemo so he doesn't accidentally bring something home and not even know it since he's in the Pfizer clinical trial.

    1. I find it ominous. Here’s a link to their protocols I downloaded about a month ago:

    2. Some pages are down, but not the Mission Statement.

  12. Perhaps the vax doses should have just been reserved for the elderly, particularly those in nursing homes and senior living facilities.

  13. Looks like maybe some more therapeutics may be on the way:


    1. Frank, Gary posted this link way up this thread.

    2. argh, sorry about that... and I do read all comments ... and also skimmed this thread before posting....


  14. How government propaganda meshes with the Cancel Culture on Facebook - and there’s money involved:

    CDC and Facebook ‘Coordinated Closely’ on Censorship of COVID-19 ‘Misinformation’: Watchdog

    Facebook “coordinated closely” with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in controlling the narrative of the CCP virus pandemic, including suppression of alleged misinformation, and gave the health agency free advertising estimated at $3 million, according to Judicial Watch, which obtained emails that were released on July 28.

    The CDC released 2,469 new documents (pdf) to Judicial Watch in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    In an email exchange beginning on Jan. 26, 2020, days after a senior program officer at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation connected the CDC with Facebook, a representative at the social media giant informed the CDC of the actions it was taking in regards to combating misinformation on the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, also known as the novel coronavirus, that causes COVID-19.

    Much more here: