FDA Advisors Plead Against Additional Boosters. We’ll See If They’re Heard This Time.

During a meeting on April 6 where FDA officials said they aim to decide on the future vaccination strategy by June, experts who advise the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spoke out against a strategy of multiple COVID-19 vaccine boosts in a short period of time.

During a virtual meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Dr. Amanda Cohn, a CDC official, said, “I do not feel that booster every eight weeks or even four months is a long-term approach for prevention.”

Dr. Arnold Monto, the committee’s interim chair, later remarked, “We don’t feel comfortable with several boosters every eight weeks.” “An annual vaccination, similar to influenza, would be fantastic.”

The FDA approved a second booster of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccinations for all Americans 50 and older, as well as individuals as young as 12, four months after the first booster.

That means that nearly 112 million Americans might get four shots in nine months if they follow the US government’s recommended immunization schedule.

Before making the decision, the FDA did not engage its outside advisory council.

Dr. Peter Marks, a key FDA official, defended the choice not to consult the panel near the start of Wednesday’s meeting, and later agreed with members that repeated boosting wasn’t ideal.

“It’s the knowing that we won’t be able to keep boosting and that we’ll reach vaccination weariness that keeps me awake at night.” He explained, “I’m not talking about immunological tiredness; I’m talking about physical exhaustion of folks who aren’t going to get boosted.”

According to federal data through April 7, while around 66% of the US population has completed a vaccine series, hardly half of those eligible for a booster have received one.

“I concur. If we keep recommending frequent boosting, we’ll become tired of it,” said Dr. Cody Meissner, a panel member.

“We just can’t continue boosting people as regularly as we are,” Marks added. “I’m the first to admit that this extra fourth booster dose that was permitted was a stopgap solution.”

The discussion with advisers was characterized as an opportunity to discuss America’s COVID-19 immunization policy in the future. The debate is fueled by waning vaccine effectiveness, particularly against infection; a succession of virus variants, some of which have been more transmissible than others; and the fact that vaccines in the US are based on the so-called Wuhan strain, which hasn’t been circulating in a meaningful way in the country since 2020.

With Jerry Weir, another FDA official, giving a presentation on what that would entail, the FDA floated a move to a model comparable to the approach used to generate annual flu vaccines.

“In order to retain vaccine effectiveness against clinically relevant variants, COVID 19 vaccines may need to be modified,” Weir told the panel.

It would be difficult to base the COVID-19 vaccination approach on the flu model, in part because the flu model is dependent on experts projecting which strains would be in play in the future, with manufacturers adjusting the shot composition depending on the forecasts.

During a presentation, Trevor Bedford, a professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, said that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus that causes COVID-19 has evolved much faster than influenza—in about two years, the evolution has been the equivalent of five years of development of similar viruses.

Dr. Melinda Wharton, another CDC official on the panel, stated, “It doesn’t appear like it’s viable to generate a type-specific vaccine in a period that would allow it to be employed for a rapidly circulating variety like Omicron.”

Others agreed that if the makeup is altered, vaccinations should target numerous strains, if not all.

During the discussion, the FDA stated that it plans to make a decision by June on whether or not to change the content of vaccines.

Officials have stated that they want to reconvene the panel to assist with the decision.

Moderna and Pfizer are among the vaccination companies who are experimenting with variant-specific dosages, with clinical results due soon.

The variant-specific shots have not been proved to be more effective in animal tests.

Some panel members believe that the current vaccines’ protection against serious disease after the primary series or the first booster is sufficient for now, and that an updated composition or more boosters are not required at this time.

“We have pretty solid data to show that the third booster dosage improves vaccine efficacy against serious disease.” “However, we’re seeing that the third dose is staying quite consistent,” Cohn said. “We may have to accept it… and then employ other alternative approaches to protect persons, such as medicines and other measures,” says the researcher.

In recent investigations, protection against infection has been observed to drop below 50% shortly after immunization. Based on surveillance data and research, the CDC believes that the primary series protects adults against hospitalization for as little as 54% after five months, but that a booster recovers much of the lost protection.

However, the restored protection is waning, prompting several countries to clear second boosters. The benefits of a second booster, according to a new Israeli study, swiftly faded.

Children’s vaccine efficiency is lower, raising concerns about the risk-benefit analysis of inoculating healthy children.

Just like the rest of these experimental “vaccines”, they don’t offer permanent immunity. Which is the only requirement of such a product. What this sounds like is a bottomless pit that citizens are pouring their taxpayer dollars into with hopes that the pharmaceutical industry will suddenly have a change of heart, and provide a product that actually works. As long as these satan soldiers are in the upper echelons of government, we most certainly will not see the truth come to light. Despite the worrisome data, governments across the world will continue to coerce citizens by fear-mongering in hopes of profit.

The internet has proved to be a place in which you can tune into various frequencies in search of a perspective that best fits your narrative. I could make up an argument on the fly and back it up with facts pertaining to my argument. With that being said, the news about COVID-19 is terrifyingly polarizing. There is a spectrum, by which all narratives of the COVID-19 agenda are carefully presented to anyone conducting research. The opposing sides of the spectrum are those who are sold on the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who aren’t sold at all.

But it becomes extremely important that we listen to our gut, when we notice that someone is eyeballing something that rightfully belongs to you. Our civil liberties are merely gods gift to man interpreted by men of power. No man, woman, government, organization, forum, or anything will prosper as a weapon against God. With that being said, when our God given rights are at stake, it is probably best to question the integrity of those who propose the removal of such rights. In summary, if you’re not a “conspiracy theorist” you probably aren’t asking very many questions about the world around you.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Hosea 4:6

Fauci Claims America Is Safe From New Sub-Variants Of COVID-19. Yet Continues To Advocate For Additional Boosters.

Anthony Fauci, the White House’s COVID-19 adviser, stated on Sunday that he doesn’t expect the CCP virus would resurface in the United States as a result of the emergence of a subvariant of Omicron.

Some officials have blamed the subvariant, known as BA.2, for an increase in cases across Europe and the United Kingdom in recent days.

“Hopefully, there will not be a surge.” I don’t believe we will be able to do so. The simplest way to avoid this is to continue to vaccinate individuals. “And for those who have been vaccinated, to continue to get them boosted, so that’s really where we stand right now,” Fauci said in a television interview, adding that COVID-19 instances in the United States will “uptick.”

When asked if the US should loosen its COVID-19 regulations, Fauci stated that he does not believe so. However, he suggested that in the future, officials may be forced to adopt COVID-19 norms and limits.

“I don’t believe so… Right now, no. I don’t think we’ll go back to those types of extremely restrictive regulations. But you have to be flexible,” said Fauci, who has led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the United States since 1984.

“So the bottom conclusion is that we’re likely to see an increase in instances, similar to what we’ve seen in European countries, particularly the United Kingdom, where… they have BA.2,” he continued. “Some restrictions, such as indoor masking, have been relaxed, and immunity has waned.”

Fauci’s comments on Sunday follow his announcement last week on a podcast that he is considering leaving the federal administration.

“I absolutely am because I have to do it at some point,” Fauci, 81, said in a March 18 interview. “Unless my coworkers discover me slumped over my desk one day, I can’t stay at this job indefinitely.” He continued, “I’d prefer not do it.”

During the Reagan administration, Fauci was named head of the federal health department, and he was responsible for overseeing the US response to the spread of AIDS/HIV in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Some Republican politicians, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have stated that if Republicans take control of the Senate or House in the forthcoming 2022 midterm elections, they will probe Fauci.

In reaction to the possibility of GOP-led investigations, Fauci said earlier this month that he expects them but dismissed them.

“It’s the Benghazi hearings all over again,” Fauci said in an interview with the Washington Post on March 15, referring to Republican promises to investigate or produce documents involving his agency’s alleged funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the pandemic.

“They’ll try to beat me up in front of the whole world, and there won’t be anything there,” Fauci added to the Post. “However, the way it is presently, it will distract me from completing my job.”

This News comes shortly after “Dr.” Fauci claimed that Americans will likely require boosters every five years during an interview.

“It depends on who you are,” Fauci said in an interview with the Financial Times last week, “but if you are a normal, healthy 30-year-old individual with no underlying issues, you might only need a booster every four or five years.”

In a January interview with NBC News, Fauci warned that people would need to get booster shots every year.

“We’ve only recently boosted people. We will find out if the booster gives you a degree of durability of protection and actually should be the standard regimen of three doses of an mRNA and two doses of Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine,” he stated last month. “Or—and it’s a big ‘or’ right now—will we need to boost people every year or so?”

The efficiency of mRNA vaccination boosters begins to wane after about four months, according to a study issued on Feb. 12 by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study did not break down the participants by age and only looked at people who sought therapy when the Omicron variant was spreading.

“There may be the need for yet again another boost—in this case, a fourth-dose boost for an individual receiving the mRNA—that could be based on age, as well as underlying conditions,” Fauci added to reporters on February 9.

He believes that recommendations for a fourth dose of the vaccine will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Fauci, who has led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for than 40 years, said in the Financial Times interview that the US is moving out of “full-blown pandemic phase.”

Several Democratic governors have pushed to repeal statewide mask laws, however some local governments have elected to maintain them.

Meanwhile, Swedish health officials announced on Monday that people aged 80 and up should have a fourth COVID-19 vaccine dose.

The vaccinations should be Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna, as with the first round of booster doses, according to the health authorities.

All people who live in nursing homes or receive assisted living services at home were covered by the recommendation. According to the CDC, the second booster dose should be given at least four months following the first booster shot.

Dr. Anthony Fauci was notified in a private teleconference that the CCP virus had most certainly leaked from a Chinese laboratory, yet he continued to promote the alternative narrative that it had spontaneously emerged, according to new evidence.

The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Anthony Fauci, may have initiated efforts to cover up evidence pointing to a laboratory leak as the source of the CCP virus, according to redacted emails recently made public.

Evidence reveals that Fauci swayed a highly influential academic study that was initially published on February 16, 2020, before being published in the prestigious science publication Nature, which ruled out such a possibility.

Five virologists collaborated on the research article, titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” four of whom joined Fauci on a teleconference on Feb. 1, 2020.

At least three of the paper’s authors indicated during the phone conference that they were “60 to 80% convinced” that the CCP virus came from a lab, a point they repeated in emails following the call.

Public claims of a possible relationship between the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China and the CCP virus outbreak surfaced at the time, but Fauci and other medical professionals disregarded these reports as conspiracy theories.

This includes Peter Daszak, founder of EcoHealth Alliance, the nonprofit that funneled United States grant money to scientists in Wuhan and the other authors, who published a statement that read, “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

In an interview with EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program, Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke, hosts of “Truth Over News,” argued that the latest data suggests that Fauci was fully aware that the CCP virus had likely leaked from the Wuhan lab in China, but deliberately pushed a different narrative.

“Proximal origin takes the firm side of the natural origin for the virus. And it’s been used by the media and by the government to debunk any talk of a lab leak. As a matter of fact, that’s what was used to push back on anybody saying anything like that was the established science,” Carlson added.

“Well, the first version of proximal origin was finished on the very same day as the teleconference. So just sort of let that sink in, at the time that Fauci and Collins [National Institutes of Health head Francis Collins] and Farrar [Jeremy Farrar, the head of the UK’s Wellcome Trust], the senior funding, the heads of our health institutions are being told privately that it’s anywhere in the range of 60 to 80 percent likely that this virus has a lab origin, they complete the first draft of proximal origin, which is later used to promote a narrative of a natural origin as opposed to a lab leak origin for the virus,” Said Carlson.

Despite evidence to the contrary, Carlson and Mahncke claimed that Fauci went public with the assertion that he was uninformed of the claims being made by academics attending the teleconference.

“What’s new about these emails are the details that have come out through these unredacted emails. Before when there was that email dump, all the emails were basically redacted 95 percent or so or just gray, gray, gray… so now we know what’s behind those redactions, some of them, and what we found out is the level of detail that the scientists already knew at the time about the engineered features of the virus,” Said Mahncke.

“So all the stuff that we’ve found out in the past two years, they knew all that on Feb. 1, 2020 … and instead of alerting the world to the fact that there’s an engineered virus that’s hitting the world, Fauci does the exact opposite. He goes out there and says, ‘No, this is all natural,’” Mahncke stated.

Fauci was requested to help create a response letter to the Trump White House’s query about the virus’s origins at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences on Feb. 3, just two days after the teleconference with the authors of “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” In which he reiterated his belief that the CCP virus emerged naturally rather than from a laboratory.

“So right from the start, Fauci is pushing really hard and in various forums, all in the same direction, natural, natural, natural,” Mahncke said. “But at the same time, he was told not only that it’s very likely that it came out of the lab, but he was told the details; that to me is very fascinating.”

Fauci denied having interacted with the authors when asked explicitly during his testimony before Congress earlier this month.

Although data gathered by US intelligence agencies and other experts suggests that the CCP virus developed in a lab, other officials argue that it has a natural origin.

EcoHealth Alliance utilized government money to fund research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, according to records obtained by The Intercept in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the publication against the National Institutes of Health.

We live in a peculiar time, in which people will blindly disregard logical explanations for catastrophes such as this one. Additional context and a wider perspective of global politics is needed to make sense of the bold claims we make about these disgusting people. But to defend the credibility of these people while disregarding a logical explanation for the origin of this virus, displays an irrefutable lack of longing for the truth. It would be unwise to go about your life assuming that nobody seeks to see you suffer. Evil exists, and you don’t deter it by ignoring every sign brought to your attention.

The internet has proved to be a place in which you can tune into various frequencies in search of a perspective that best fits your narrative. I could make up an argument on the fly and back it up with facts pertaining to my argument. With that being said, the news about COVID-19 is terrifyingly polarizing. There is a spectrum, by which all narratives of the COVID-19 agenda are carefully presented to anyone conducting research. The opposing sides of the spectrum are those who are sold on the COVID-19 pandemic, and those who aren’t sold at all.

But it becomes extremely important that we listen to our gut, when we notice that someone is eyeballing something that rightfully belongs to you. Our civil liberties are merely gods gift to man interpreted by men of power. No man, woman, government, organization, forum, or anything will prosper as a weapon against God. With that being said, when our God given rights are at stake, it is probably best to question the integrity of those who propose the removal of such rights. In summary, if you’re not a “conspiracy theorist” you probably aren’t asking very many questions about the world around you.

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Hosea 4:6