MAGNIFICENT MERCOLA: US Gives Pfizer $3.2 Billion for Ineffective COVID Vax and Fauci Likely to Birth His Own COVID Variant After Paxlovid (That guy drinks his own Kool-Aid)

Covid-Vax-supply

I am doing something a little different today. You will find two Mercola articles in one today.

How many of you are insane enough to get the fourth dose of a failed jab, which has been shown to have received approval through a highly corrupt process, with evidence from the FDA itself that Pfizer LIED about the safety data? How long and how many jabs will it take, and how many people have to die before the rest wake up? Do you understand that Bill Gates (aka Satan himself) is behind the booster push? After all, he is probably the largest funder of the WHO.

How many of you are crazy enough to take Paxlovid? Here we have another EUA drug that fails entirely, but they are still moving forward with it. It's as plain as the nose on your face that we cannot trust the FDA to do the right thing. They should be eliminated. 

Continue reading Dr. Mercola's articles below for more information.

Story at-a-glance

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it, in partnership with the Department of Defense, agreed to purchase another 105 million doses of Pfizer's COVID-19 shot — for $3.2 billion
  • The contract is intended to supply shots for a coming fall injection campaign and includes options to purchase up to 300 million doses
  • The decision came after a June 28 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which recommended that an Omicron-specific component be included in COVID-19 booster shots in the U.S.
  • Pfizer stands to profit significantly from the contract and has forecast that its COVID-19 shot sales will reach $32 billion in 2022
  • VRBPAC voted 19-2 in favor of recommending booster shots that are Omicron-specific, even though panel members expressed uncertainty and guesswork surrounding the booster rollout

In a news release quietly published June 29, 2022, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it, in partnership with the Department of Defense, agreed to purchase another 105 million doses of Pfizer's COVID-19 shot — for $3.2 billion.1

The contract is intended to supply shots for a coming fall injection campaign and includes options to purchase up to 300 million doses. The decision came after a June 28, 2022 meeting of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which recommended that an Omicron-specific component be included in COVID-19 booster shots in the U.S.2

"We look forward to taking delivery of these new variant-specific vaccines and working with state and local health departments, pharmacies, health care providers, federally qualified health centers, and other partners to make them available in communities around the country this fall," Dawn O'Connell, HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response, said in the news release.3

Billions More Dollars Directed Toward Failed Injections

The shots, which include both adult and pediatric doses, cost more than $30 per dose, on average, which is a more than 50% increase from the $19.50 per dose rate in the U.S. government's initial contract with Pfizer.4 Some of the adult doses are now in single-dose vials, which cost more to produce but are intended to reduce waste that often occurs from open multi-dose vials.

Pfizer stands to profit significantly from the contract and has forecast that its COVID-19 shot sales will reach $32 billion in 2022.5 It's the U.S. public that stands to lose in this deal, as they're inundated with a new push to get injected with yet another COVID-19 shot, despite their continued failures.

Current COVID-19 booster shots lose effectiveness rapidly, with protection plummeting by the fourth month post-shot.6 The eye-raising data, presented by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, follows the same dismal pattern of effectiveness displayed by the primary mRNA COVID-19 shot series, whose effectiveness also wanes in a matter of months.

Adding insult to injury, research conducted by the New York State Department of Health7 analyzed outcomes among 852,384 children aged 12 to 17 years, and 365,502 children aged 5 to 11 years, who had received two doses of the shots, from December 13, 2021 to January 24, 2022.

Effectiveness again declined rapidly among 5- to 11-year-olds, falling from 68% to just 12%. Protection against hospitalization also dropped, from 100% to 48%. Among 11-year-olds alone, vaccine effectiveness plunged to 11%.8 The lackluster response was blamed on the dosage discrepancies among the age groups, as 5- to 11-year-olds receive two 10-microgram Pfizer shots, while 12- to 17-year-olds receive 30-microgram shots.9

Panel Acts as 'Crystal Ball' in Guessing Which Booster to Use

It's well known that spike protein mutates rapidly, which essentially destroys virtually any protection that COVID-19 shots provide shortly after they're given. The end result is a seemingly never-ending series of annual shots and boosters.

Pfizer claimed that its new booster candidates would work better than their past versions. One option being considered targets only the Omicron variant, while the other option targets the strain in the original shot along with the Omicron variant.10 Two doses — one including 30 mcg of mRNA and one including 60 mcg — were also tested, despite earlier safety concerns with a higher-dose shot.11

While Pfizer cited strong antibody responses from the retooled boosters, the booster shot studies do not reveal whether the shots prevent COVID-19 cases or how long they are effective.12 VRBPAC voted 19-2 in favor of recommending booster shots that are Omicron-specific, but the FDA will ultimately decide what formulation will be in the "winning" shot.

Under discussion was whether the shots should target the original Omicron strain BA.1 or the subvariants that have emerged — known as BA.4 and BA.5, which appear to be spreading in the U.S.13

Dr. Paul Offit, who is notoriously pro-vaccine, was one of the two people who voted against the booster recommendation, because he didn't agree with the variant being included and believed there was a "dearth of data" regarding the level at which the body's immune response to antibodies corresponds to sound protection.14

"I'm still not comfortable enough that we have the information we need to essentially support this new product," Offit said.15 The move highlights the uncertainty and guesswork surrounding the booster rollout. Committee member Adam Berger, with the U.S. National Institutes of Health, also stated, "I'm not sure we have enough evidence to support a change today," but he voted in favor of the recommendation anyway.16 NBC News also reported:17

"Dr. Peter Marks, the FDA's top vaccine regulator, acknowledged that the question before the committee was challenging and would require guesswork, saying that the federal agency was essentially asking the panel to act as a sort of 'crystal ball.'


"... Committee member Dr. Cody Meissner, a pediatrician at Tufts University School of Medicine, suggested that the bivalent vaccine only be made available to adults at first, noting that scientists don't know what the potential side effects are, if any, from multiple doses of the Covid vaccines."


FDA's 'Future Framework' Does Away With COVID Shot Trials

The FDA supplied the agenda for the VRBPAC committee meeting,18 along with an 18-page briefing document that included just 19 references, none of which was peer-reviewed.19 "To base the entire future of COVID-19 shots on this glorified undergrad term paper is madness," wrote political economist Toby Rogers, who explains that a "Future Framework" is being presented that exempts future COVID-19 shots from clinical trials:20

"The briefing document literally states: "The evaluation of modified vaccines for the purpose of vaccine strain composition decisions will need to rely mainly on comparative immunogenicity data due to the time constraints involved in vaccine manufacturing and clinical efficacy evaluation."


"Did you catch that? The evaluation "will need to rely on" (no decision to be made here) measures other than actual health outcomes because of "time constraints." Ah, $cience! Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax are all developing reformulated COVID-19 shots. But they know that the FDA is not going to look at health outcomes so they are going to great lengths to jack up the antibody response.


"... But the VRBPAC admitted on April 6 that there are no known correlates of protection (meaning: antibody levels do not tell you who will be immune) so these antibody measures are medically meaningless.


"Sane people realize that if you turbo charge the immune response, you may also turbo charge adverse events. But the "Future Framework" allows pharmaceutical companies to skip clinical trials altogether."


What's more, Rogers revealed that it's actually the World Health Organization and Bill Gates who are behind this push to roll out new formulations of COVID-19 shots without adequate clinical trials. "This entire 'Future Framework' is actually coming from the WHO. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the biggest voluntary contributor to the WHO.

So Gates is likely directing the play," he explained, noting that WHO's Kanta Subbarao — who formerly worked at Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 14 years — presented at the VRBPAC meeting on the topic of "Considerations for Vaccine Strain Composition from the WHO TAG CO-VAC [Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition]."

VRBPAC Shot Approval Will 'Increase Harm to the US Public'

The gist of her presentation was that strain selection for COVID-19 shots must be coordinated globally, similar to what occurs for influenza. Sounding an alarm over the VRBPAC's essential approval of the future framework with their move to recommend new COVID-19 booster shots for the fall, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Children's Health Defense chief scientific officer and professor of biology at Simpson University, told The Defender:21

"The proposed move by VRBPAC will increase the harm to the U.S. public to unprecedented levels, as this action will further circumvent necessary clinical trials even beyond the slapdash testing of COVID-19 vaccines under Emergency Use Authorization. This adds to a foundation of lies used to authorize the original COVID-19 vaccines without anywhere near proper testing."


VRBPAC also has a history of allowing members with conflicts of interest to vote. When VRBPAC voted on allowing COVID-19 shots for children as young as 6 months, Dr. James Hildreth, who had received a waiver allowing participation in the meeting, declared a number of financial interests related to clinical trials for the pediatric COVID-19 shots being voted on, both personally and related to his employer.

Despite the conflicts, he was allowed to vote at the session, voting favorably for all three pediatric COVID-19 shots.22

Millions of COVID-19 Doses Wasted in the US

The U.S. continues to stockpile COVID-19 shots, wasting billions of dollars on the shots even as demand fizzles. An ABC News investigation found that millions of shots have gone unused as the demand for the injections plummeted. In speaking with health department officials in all 50 states, they found millions of instances of COVID-19 shots going to waste, sitting unused or set to expire in coming weeks. This includes:23

  • 1.7 million doses wasted in Michigan since December 2020
  • 619,000 doses unused in Colorado
  • 3.6 million shots sitting in a stockpile in California
  • Close to 760,000 doses deemed nonviable, spoiled or expired in Oregon
  • More than 850,000 doses wasted in Wisconsin24

As word continues to get out that COVID-19 shots are failing, and adverse effects can be severe — even deadly25 — reluctance to get the shots is growing. In May 2022, only 18% of parents said they were willing to get their under-5-year-old child a COVID-19 shot, while 27% said they "definitely would not" get them the shot.26

Such caution is wise, as artificially inflated antibodies caused by repeated booster shots signal to your body that you're always infected, and the resulting immune response comes at a cost and could prove to be detrimental to your health, potentially accelerating the development of autoimmune conditions such as Parkinson's, Kawasaki disease and multiple sclerosis.27

Further, training your body to produce singular antibodies for one spike protein cannot compare to the protection provided by natural immunity, which occurs after recovery from an illness. According to Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser for Pfizer, the human body mounts its best immune responses after natural COVID-19 infection, not exposure to the spike protein in the shots.

He stated that 90% of the immune response mounted after natural COVID-19 exposure is not to the spike protein at all,28 raising more concerns about COVID-19 shots' validity. The U.S. government is forging ahead with more shots nonetheless. You can expect a renewed push for boosters to hit the airwaves soon, as HHS expects its first deliveries of the latest COVID-19 shots to arrive in early fall.29

Fauci Likely to Birth His Own COVID Variant After Paxlovid

Story at-a-glance

  • The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci took Paxlovid for COVID-19, tested negative, then developed worsened symptoms, known as COVID-19 rebound; he then took a second course of the drug
  • People who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they're asymptomatic
  • Two separate studies suggest Paxlovid is causing SARS-CoV-2 to mutate and develop resistance to the drug
  • Despite the many questions regarding Paxlovid's association with rebound infections and mutations, Pfizer is moving ahead and seeking full approval of the drug from the FDA

Pfizer's Paxlovid was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.1 The drug consists of nirmatrelvir tablets — the antiviral component — and ritonavir tablets, which are intended to slow the breakdown of nirmatrelvir.2

What started out as a slow rollout — only 40,000 or fewer prescriptions were written for the drug in the U.S. each week through April 2022 — has gained steam, with more than 160,000 Paxlovid prescriptions now being issued each week.3 As of June 30, 2022, 1.6 million courses of Paxlovid have been prescribed in the U.S. since its emergency use approval in December.4

Yet, this increase in prescribing could be contributing to one of the significant downfalls of the drug — the creation of selective pressure on SARS-CoV-2, which promotes mutations that could make it resistant to the drug.5 The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also issued a warning to health care providers and public health departments about the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment.6

This recently happened to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), who experienced a return of COVID-19 symptoms after taking Paxlovid. He then took a second course of the drug, which could trigger even more mutations in the virus.

Paxlovid Triggers Fauci's COVID-19 Rebound

Fauci said he tested positive for COVID-19, with only minimal symptoms. As his symptoms increased, he took Paxlovid for five days, after which he tested negative for three consecutive days. On the fourth day of testing, he tested positive for COVID-19 again, with symptoms worse off than they were the first time.

"It was sort of what people are referring to as a Paxlovid rebound," he said. "... Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around."7 He was then prescribed a second course of Paxlovid.

On June 30, he stated, "I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I'm not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don't feel acutely ill."8 In the CDC's health advisory regarding COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatment it's stated:9

"Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a 5-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness 2 to 8 days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted ...


"These cases of COVID-19 rebound had negative test results after Paxlovid treatment and had subsequent positive viral antigen and/or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing."

COVID-19 Still Spreads During Paxlovid Rebound

People who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they're asymptomatic, according to a preprint study.10 Study author Dr. Michael Charness of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Boston told CNN, "People who experience rebound are at risk of transmitting to other people, even though they're outside what people accept as the usual window for being able to transmit."11

The CDC12 and Pfizer13 have suggested that sometimes COVID-19 naturally comes back after a person tests negative, implying that COVID-19 rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid. However, Charness and colleagues didn't find this to be the case. When they analyzed 1,000 cases of COVID-19 diagnosed among members of the National Basketball Association — none of whom took Paxlovid — no cases of COVID-19 rebound were found.14

Research published in Clinical Infectious Diseases15 looked into why Paxlovid may be leading to rebound symptoms and suggests it could be the result of insufficient exposure to the drug.16 "Not enough of the drug was getting to infected cells to stop all viral replication," UC San Diego Health reported. "They suggested this may be due to the drug being metabolized more quickly in some individuals or that the drug needs to be delivered over a longer treatment duration."17

Pfizer Seeks FDA Approval for Paxlovid

Despite the many questions regarding Paxlovid's association with rebound infections, Pfizer is moving ahead and seeking full approval of the drug from the FDA.18 The drug's emergency use authorization restricts who the drug can be sold and marketed to. Once full FDA approval is granted, Pfizer can market the drug directly to consumers.

Paxlovid's emergency use authorization allows it to be prescribed for adults and children ages 12 and older who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19.19 Pfizer estimates that up to 60% of the U.S. population meets these criteria and has at least one risk factor for severe illness, such as obesity or diabetes, making them eligible for the drug.20

However, concerns have risen over whether Paxlovid, which is said to cut the risk of hospitalization or death by 86% in high-risk patients, when taken within five days of symptoms starting,21 is effective in people who are not high-risk.

In fact, Pfizer stopped a large trial of Paxlovid in standard-risk patients because it didn't show significant protection against hospitalization or death in this group.22 According to a news release from Pfizer:23

"In previously reported interim analyses, the company disclosed that the novel primary endpoint of self-reported, sustained alleviation of all symptoms for four consecutive days was not met, and a non-significant 70% relative risk reduction was observed in the key secondary endpoint of hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/428; placebo: 10/426).


"An updated analysis from 1,153 patients enrolled through December 2021 showed a non-significant 51% relative risk reduction (treatment arm: 5/576; placebo: 10/569). A sub-group analysis of 721 vaccinated adults with at least one risk factor for progression to severe COVID-19 showed a non-significant 57% relative risk reduction in hospitalization or death (treatment arm: 3/361; placebo: 7/360)."


Is Paxlovid Triggering SARS-CoV-2 Mutations?

Initial reports have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 is not mutating and becoming resistant to Paxlovid, but some experts believe it's only a matter of time before this occurs — and emerging research suggests it's already happened.

David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University, was among the first to document resistance mutations in HIV 30 years ago and believes the same may be coming with SARS-CoV-2.24 He's also experienced post-Paxlovid COVID-19 rebound firsthand. Bloomberg reported:25

"Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 ... His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.


"Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.


"'It surprised the heck out of me,' he said. 'Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.' While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops."


Studies Show COVID-19 Virus Developing Paxlovid Resistance

Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 in a lab and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir, which would kill some, but not all, of the virus. "Such tests are meant to simulate what might happen in an infected person who doesn't take the whole regimen of the drug or an immunocompromised patient who has trouble clearing the virus," Science reported.26

One of the studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2 developed three mutations after 12 rounds of nirmatrelvir treatment — "at positions 50, 166 and 167 in the string of amino acids that make up MPRO."27 The mutations amounted to a 20-fold reduction in the virus' susceptibility to nirmatrelvir.28 The other study29 also found mutations at positions 50 and 166, revealing that when they occurred together, SARS-CoV-2 became 80 times less susceptible to nirmatrelvir. According to the study:30

"Reverse genetic studies in a homologous infectious cell culture system revealed up to 80-fold resistance conferred by the combination of substitutions L50F and E166V. Resistant variants had high fitness increasing the likelihood of occurrence and spread of resistance."


Lead study author Judith Margarete Gottwein with the University of Copenhagen told Science, "This tells us what mutations we should be looking for [in patients]."31 Ho, who was not involved in these studies, agreed that it appeared mutations were an inevitable outcome.

He told Science, "when you put pressure on the virus it escapes ... Given the amount of infections out there, it's going to come."32 It's also completely unknown what may happen when two courses of Paxlovid are taken in quick succession to treat COVID-19 rebound — as occurred with Fauci. It's possible that ever-mutating COVID-19 variants could be created.

Other antivirals on the market to treat COVID-19 have also led to concerns over mutations. Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio) was developed by Merck and Ridgeback Therapeutics and approved by the FDA for emergency use December 23, 2021, for high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms.

However, not only might it contribute to cancer and birth defects, it may also supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more resistant variants.33

Other Early COVID-19 Treatments Ignored

Using drugs that cause high rates of organ failure, like remdesivir, and drugs that cause the virus to rebound with a vengeance, like Paxlovid, and potentially trigger mutations don't seem to be in the best interest of public health. The fact that U.S. health authorities have focused on these drugs to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

An investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University's preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed 10 other drugs against COVID-19, making it the most effective against the Omicron variant.34 It even outperformed Paxlovid, yet it's been vilified by health officials and mainstream media.

Remdesivir costs between $2,340 and $3,120,35 and nirmatrelvir costs $529 per five-day treatment,36 while the average treatment cost for ivermectin is $58.37 Do you think this has anything to do with ivermectin's vilification?

Paxlovid alone has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion,38 while safe and less expensive options exist. Dr. Pierre Kory, who is part of the group that formed the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Working Group (FLCCC) to advance early treatments for COVID-19, pleaded with the U.S. government early on in the pandemic to review the expansive data on ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, keep those with early symptoms from progressing and help critically ill patients recover — to no avail.39,40

However, if you'd like to learn more about its potential uses for SARS-CoV-2, FLCCC's I-MASK+ protocol can be downloaded in full,41 giving you step-by-step instructions on how to prevent and treat the early symptoms of COVID-19.

Related

  • Taken together, this work clearly demonstrates that vaccine-induced protective antibody responses following a second and third dose of BNT162b2 are both very low and transient in older people
  • The authors conclude that "additional booster doses may be necessary, particularly in older people." … One has to wonder, whether the study authors really mean to imply that a total of 13 boosters per year are needed (52 weeks/four weeks = 13 boosters)? Or are they just writing this to get through peer review?
  • A more unbiased conclusion based on these data is that the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine has exceptionally poor durability of neutralizing antibody response (using a non-validated or "academic research" level test) against currently circulating viral strains
  • The failure to address these data clearly demonstrates, once again, both the failure of the peer review process, the irrational pro-vaccine bias of the authors, and the pro-vaccine bias of the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association
 
Loading comment... The comment will be refreshed after 00:00.

Be the first to comment.

You must login to post a comment.

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://rubyraymedia.com/