Coffee & Covid ☙ Saturday, October 16, 2021 ☙ BOOSTERS IGNITED 
Today we look at: A terrific 5DAY update, the FDA green-lights booster mandates; I examine the details of the NIH’s new study that claims mixing-and-matching injections and boosters is totally fine…
 |
Happy Saturday, team C&C! Today we look at: A terrific 5DAY update, the FDA green-lights booster mandates; I examine the details of the NIH’s new study that claims mixing-and-matching injections and boosters is totally fine; two new studies show an INVERSE relationship between injections and Covid cases; studies show my Covid-crazy theory is showing up in the data in a big way; Alachua County decides it doesn’t want to hear from the peeps anymore; and a recently-filed Iowa bill sets the “gold standard” for anti-vaccine-discrimination legislation.
*THE C&C ARMY POST*
5DAY Update: Finally! There’s a tremendous amount of pressure building behind the scenes for a special session. It’s working. All our hard work is paying off. First, the governor hinted at a recent press conference that he was pushing for the special session, which has to be approved by Florida’s House and Senate. Next, I attended a large political event a couple nights ago and ran into the legislative coordinator for one of our house members. She stopped me, asked if I’d meet with the representative soon, and said, “your people have called us a LOT.” Yep, you got that right. Now, we double down.
 |
*COVID NEWS AND COMMENTARY*
The FDA is cooking J&J’s goose, on high. In another 19-0 vote, the FDA’s now-compliant advisory panel on Friday recommended booster shots for the Johnson & Johnson injection. Unlike Pfizer and Moderna, this time the committee voted the drug should be given to ALL adults who got the J&J injection, not just elderly and vulnerable. With that vote, the committee has now approved ongoing injections for all three vaccines available in the United States. The light for booster mandates is now “green.”
Continuing its slam on J&J, the Committee snarkily explained that it expanded the application of boosters to all adults because J&J doesn’t provide “as much protection” as Moderna and Pfizer, simultaneously slandering the drug and stripping away its only advantage, being “one and done.” Well played, FDA.
My favorite part though was reading about how the Committee said J&J doesn’t protect as well as the two mRNA injections. Haha! I read it while taking a sip of coffee and immediately experienced a warm, java-flavored nasal irrigation.
Just last month, The Hill reported that Pfizer and Moderna’s own data shows their drugs’ efficacy peaking in only sixty days then declining rapidly to under 50% within six months. At under 50% efficacy, the drugs are competing with placebos, so in other words, they basically stop working at that point.
Meanwhile, have you seen any articles about J&J’s efficacy waning? Nope, you haven’t. Not one. So where did all this need for “boosting” come from? I think J&J should have kept more quiet about it. On September 21, 2021 — only about three weeks ago — J&J released a presser on its website with this headline: “Johnson & Johnson Announces Real-World Evidence and Phase 3 Data Confirming Strong and Long-Lasting Protection of Single-Shot COVID-19 Vaccine in the U.S.”
Uh-oh! It looks like J&J was a little too enthusiastic on how the competitive mRNA injections don’t retain their firmness. I mean stiffness. I mean, they don’t keep being useful without going, um, without losing their practical efficiency. You get the idea.
Nothing from the media, of course. Useless. It only took me five seconds to find that J&J press release.
Anyway, the FDA Advisory Committee just MADE UP the stuff about Pfizer and Moderna giving “better protection” than J&J. Even J&J said — until about ten minutes ago — that boosters weren’t needed.
The Hill reports that, “Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said Friday that Johnson & Johnson didn’t provide information indicating why a booster might be needed.” You don’t say.
Well, there could be one reason. I guess it’s kind of obvious. You make a lot more money if the federal government orders all its employees to buy your product every few months. Does that reason count?
Finally, the Hill ended its article by referencing a new study that issued out of the bowels of Fauci’s NIH last week. Look at how the Hill — a hopelessly left-leaning paper — described the study’s conclusions:
> “Friday’s evaluation comes two days after a federal study said ‘mixing and matching’ booster doses is safe and offers added protection. That means scientists found that a person who received two original doses of Moderna’s vaccine could safely get a Pfizer booster — or a person who received Pfizer’s vaccine could get a Johnson & Johnson booster, even though they are formulated differently and are completely different types of vaccines.”
Hahahaha! It’s all the same! Don’t worry about it! Nothing could go wrong! Jab away! But actually, The Hill sounds sort of skeptical. It was just one teeny-tiny step away from calling out the NIH’s ridiculous study. The next logical sentence to complete that paragraph would have been, “Which even a five-year-old could tell you is a dumb idea.”
Let’s take a closer look at the NIH’s awesome study.
So, the NIH’s study, titled “Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccinations — Preliminary Report” has a large group of carefully hand-picked authors. The study, which will now be used to justify giving the additional injections to BILLIONS of people, included only 458 participants — about 150 each who originally got one of the three EUA approved vaccines. Long term safety data? Nope. They watched the participants for 30 days. How many were “excluded” from the study during the trial? Who knows, they don’t say.
What they DO say though is that “Injection site pain, malaise, headache, and myalgia occurred in more than half the participants.”
Sounds like fun. “Hi! I’m here for my free shot of malaise, please!” Seriously, I wonder about whether people would actually pay ANY amount for these shots, if they weren’t free. Would people pay $50, do you think, for a 50% chance of feeling awful for a week? Isn’t that basically the same as getting Covid for almost everybody, except that your chances are a lot better with Covid? I mean, I’m a Covid Survivor, and I didn’t get MALAISE, headaches, and myalgia. What the actual heck is going on?
The scientists also didn’t check to see whether the folks in the study had natural antibodies, because, apparently, it would just take too long to check, and that would slow things down too much. “We did not screen for past or current evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection to facilitate rapid enrollment in the study,” the researchers admitted.
Hahahaha! That’s how you do it, folks! See, if you understood SCIENCE, you would understand that if you need to get your study done RAPIDLY then you don’t need to check for Covid antibodies, because that test would take too long. If you were smart, like the scientists, you would understand. Ah! No! Don’t ask questions! Science! Shut up!
They needed to get it done “rapidly” because … um … they don’t really say! But it’s NOT politics. No way. Science. You’re too dumb to understand anyways.
Later, the study admits that “the sample size is insufficient for inter-group comparisons, and the demographics of those studied are NOT representative of the US population.” Oh. Okay. Weird. Why not pick participants who WERE representative of the general population? Wouldn’t that be better?
My guess is that the study participants were a lot healthier than the US population, on average. Half were under 50. So, if the study is not useful for extrapolating to the general population, then what IS the study good for?
Never mind! It’s useful for the media to quote it, out of context, and claim it says that mixing and matching the injections is even BETTER than sticking with your original drug. Try them all! It’s like a vaccine salad bar. Here’s some ranch dressing to go with those spike proteins.
Out of 458 participants, the study notes TWO Significant Adverse Events, (acute renal failure and an inflamed gall bladder). Four more reported mid-level AE’s including vomiting, fatigue / feeling weird, and insomnia. The study admits, “the sample size and interim follow-up period were NOT SUFFICIENT to identify rare or late adverse events following booster vaccination.” So.
Well, okay then. Sounds totally safe. What could go wrong? Boosters, ignited! Stand by, federal employees and contractors! Your booster doses are about to become mandatory.
So, is the plan for the federal government to continue paying for booster shots for Americans forever and ever? Is this now a permanent part of government? Why don’t we just nationalize the vaccine companies then?
Where are all the OTHER vaccine candidates that were in production at the same time as J&J, Moderna, and Pfizer? What’s going on with THEM? The Motley Fool (an investment news website) explains the delay: “the strong momentum [for Novavax] of 2020 seems to be missing, primarily due to the failure to gain any authorization for the vaccine so far.”
Oh, okay. Failure to gain authorization. From who?
On Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that California has some of the lowest Covid case rates in the US, even though the Golden State’s vaccination rate lags many states that are currently struggling with the delta variant. “Even though.”
On the other hand, the article seemed puzzled that high-injection rate states were struggling with cases, like “the New England states of Vermont and Maine.” The Chronicle reported, “relatively shielded from the worst of the nation’s previous surges, they have [now] struggled against the delta variant, which has sent their case rates soaring.”
Vermont has THE highest vaccination rate in the country. Among those 65 years and older, 99.9 percent are fully vaccinated, and 74 percent of those 18-64 are fully vaccinated.” Strangely, Vermont recently set its single-day case record for the entire pandemic. So. Weird. What could explain this?
The experts are just completely baffled.
A study published last month in the European Journal of Epidemiology examined 168 countries and 2,947 counties in the United States and concluded that higher vaccination rates are NOT associated with fewer Covid cases. In other words, more injections did NOT result in fewer cases.
Actually, it’s worse than that. The study concluded, “At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days. In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have HIGHER Covid-19 cases per 1 million people.”
More injections = higher cases. Terrific!
Now. If the injections don’t reduce, but actually INCREASE infections, what is the argument for mandates again? I’m seriously asking.
The Wall Street Journal just ran an opinion piece that makes the same point I’ve been hammering on lately: “Covid Anxiety Is a Health Problem Too.” The subhead explains that it refers to “A new study [that] finds 129 million additional cases of major mental disorders world-wide compared with pre-pandemic figures.”
It’s referring to a new global study published in the Lancet recently that examines 48 data sources and reports a world-wide increase of more than 129 million cases of major depression and anxiety disorders compared with pre-pandemic figures. MAJOR depression and anxiety disorders. “Major.”
Told you.
The Lancet researchers attribute all this to the “combined effects of the spread of the virus, lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, decreased public transport, school and business closures, and decreased social interactions, among other factors.”
They aren’t just guessing about the cause, either. The data shows the rise in mental-health problems correlated with both infection rates AND government mandates: “We estimated that the locations hit hardest by the pandemic in 2020, as measured with decreased human mobility and daily SARS-CoV-2 infection rate, had the greatest increases in prevalence of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders.”
The WSJ’s op-ed also notes a similar new CDC report that found that the frequency of anxiety and depression was directly correlated with the average number of daily Covid-19 cases. But for some reason, the CDC didn’t look at the effect of mandates. Odd.
Anyway, even worse, both studies observed that the bad mental-health outcomes were most severe in younger people. The op-ed concludes, “many people who didn’t get sick with Covid-19 will never be the same again.”
Never. In other words, they’ll have permanent mental illnesses. Thanks again, experts.
Alachua County, Florida, where I live, announced yesterday that it will no longer allow any public comment on any of its social media posts, including Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Shut up, morons! Nobody cares what you think! The County’s most recent announcement explains, “It is not the County’s intent for posts to be public forums. … The default setting on future posts will be to disallow comments.”
So … for twenty months of the pandemic, comments were fine. But now, for some reason, they’re terrible. Well, because domestic terrorists. The County explained the decision was because of “the algorithms used by social media to encourage hatred, conflict, misleading and false information, and dangerous behaviors[.]”
So … um … it’s the platforms’ fault! Something about the algorithms used by ALL social media platforms are PURPOSELY encouraging “hatred” and “dangerous behaviors!”
Really? THAT’s what we’re supposed to believe? Or could it be that the County is losing control of the narrative? Could that be it?
A new Iowa bill, Iowa SF 193, categorically bans all human rights violations in relation to government mandated Covid injections. It prohibits an employer from failing or refusing to hire, discharge, penalize, or otherwise discriminate against an employee with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on the employee’s vaccination history or the refusal of the employee to receive a vaccine or provide proof of immunity. It provides anyone discriminated against with a right to sue, and sets a prescribed remedy of back pay plus 10% from the employer.
The Iowa bill specifically bans any discrimination against health care workers or discrimination on the treatment side for patients in a health care setting. It spells out every form of medical professional, including medical students and residents. Importantly, this bill bars any health care provider licensing authority from denying or revoking a license to any applicant because they decline the shot.
The bill bars all insurance companies from discriminating against those who don’t get the shot. This means they cannot reject; deny; limit; cancel; refuse to renew; increase the premiums for; limit the amount, extent, or kind of coverage available to; or otherwise adversely affect eligibility or coverage for the group health policy, contract, or plan for health insurance.
There’s a lot more. They are calling it the “gold standard.” Let’s go, Brandon!
Have a terrific weekend. C&C subscribers, I’ll see you tomorrow for your special edition. Everyone else, we’ll kick the week off right again on Monday morning. See you then.