Category U. S. Neocons

Jun 15 2022

The immunological rationale against C-19 vaccination of children, Part I


Published originally on TrialSite News on April 20, 2022

Geert Vanden Bossche, DVM, PhD

General Manager at Voice for Science and Solidarity | The biggest challenge in vaccinology: Countering immune evasion

Table of content

  • Key message
  • Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel
  • There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children 
  • Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines 
  • Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity
  • Omicron serves as an excellent live attenuated vaccine in healthy unvaccinated children. Vaccinating them with any of the current C-19 vaccines will only further increase instead of mitigating the selective immune pressure exerted by highly vaccinated populations and unquestionably take away the last glimmer of hope for generating herd immunity  
  • No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint
  • Summary and overall conclusion

Key message: 

When a deep understanding of immunology, virology, vaccinology, evolutionary biology, and molecular biology is applied to analysis of whether children should receive current vaccines against COVID-19 (C-19), it is concluded that recommendation of such vaccination is scientifically unsound and that such vaccination is harmful to individual children, children as a group, and Humanity as a whole, for the following reasons:    

  1. children have an abundant population of innate B cells that are capable of rapidly producing innate/ natural antibodies (Abs), mostly of IgM isotype, and that are highly adaptable to a broad and diversified spectrum of antigens or pathogenic agents. Innate Abs can facilitate cell-mediated killing of host cells infected with Coronaviruses (CoVs), including all SC-2 variants, independently of previous immune priming by antigen/pathogen encounters.  
  2. innate immunity can be trained such as to acquire memory and, therefore, improve the host’s innate immune defense upon future exposure to more infectious variants that may emerge during an epidemic or pandemic.
  3. the C-19 vaccines undermine the innate immune system—by, for example, hindering binding of innate, low-affinity antibodies and by interfering with the normal training of a child’s innate immune system.  
  4. By priming specific vaccine-induced immunity instead of exploiting the host’s pre-existing natural multi-specific immune defense, the C-19 vaccines prevent the development of optimal, sterilizing immunity in vaccinees.  
  5. Whereas natural immunity (i.e., innate Ab-mediated killer cell immunity combined with neutralizing S(pike)-specific Abs acquired upon recovery from natural disease) contributes to generating herd immunity during a pandemic/ epidemic, neutralizing, S-specific vaccinal Abs do not. Since the vaccine prevents the development of optimal, sterilizing natural immunity, C-19 vaccines prevent the vaccinated child from contributing to building herd immunity during a SARS-CoV-2 (SC-2) pandemic.
  6. Since unvaccinated children’s immune systems contribute to the development of herd immunity against CoVs, they contribute a huge public health benefit.  C-19 vaccination of children prevents this public health benefit. 
  7. Priming the child’s immune system with C-19 vaccines is likely to further enhance immune escape and increase the infectiousness and virulence of future variants.
  8. Increasingly, it is unvaccinated children who will be best able to handle future  infection by new SC-2 variants, compared to vaccinated children and vaccinated adults—because the unvaccinated have unhampered capacity to naturally activate innate Ab-mediated sterilizing immunity, whereas the vaccinated have compromised innate immunity and are prone to breakthrough infections (due to declining vaccinal Ab titers) and potentially predisposed to Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (due to suboptimal neutralizing capacity of vaccinal Abs). 
  9. Compared to unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals are more likely to become infected with SC-2 in case the virus becomes largely resistant to the potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs—because, among other things, non-neutralizing vaccinal anti-S Abs actually facilitate entry of SC-2 into human epithelial cells of the upper respiratory tract.   
  10. The vaccine’s interference with the function and training of a child’s innate immune system makes the vaccinated child more susceptible to not only C-19 disease, but also other viral (respiratory) diseases.
  11. In addition, the vaccines may provoke immune inflammatory and auto-reactive effects on individual vaccinees—causing vaccine-related side effects such as myocarditis, for example, and other potential autoimmune diseases.   
  12. Bottom Line: There is compelling scientific evidence that the risks associated with C-19 vaccination far outweigh any benefits—at an individual level, at an evolutionary biology level, and at a herd immunity level.

Innate immunity: The child’s guardian angel

Innate immunity is a natural general protection that a person is born with.  The innate immune system with which children are born is the reason that healthy children do not become severely ill with SC-2 infection.  When they are exposed to the SC-2 virus, pre-existing immune effector cells of their innate immune system produce high concentrations of functional innate natural poly-specific antibodies (Abs) that are capable of recognizing all SC-2 variants and even all CoVs. These innate natural poly-specific antibodies are thought to recognize all SC-2 variants (and other CoVs) and are directed at true self-antigens (e.g., self-glycans) as well as self-mimicking antigen patterns on the virus. Self-mimicking glycan patterns are, for example, exposed on the surface of glycosylated enveloped viruses. Children who are born with rare genetic deficiencies of innate immune effector genes or whose innate immune defense is weakened due to underlying diseases may not benefit from a sufficiently strong protective immune response. However, these cases are the very rare exception and are not considered for the purpose of the following opinion piece.

There is also compelling evidence that innate immunity can be trained by epigenetic changes.  The latter can change the immune response in such a way that innate immune cells respond more strongly towards a second exposure to the virus than to the initial exposure.  Repeated challenges to SC-2 during the C-19 pandemic would already explain why ‘trained’ innate immune cells in older age groups (in contrast to naïve innate immune cells in children) may even lead to negative vaccine efficacy in these age groups (see attachment at the bottom; data Public Health Scotland and UK Health Security Agency; UKHSA).

The quality of one’s innate immune system is directly related to one’s overall health.  If a person is healthy, has no underlying disease, has good nutrition, lives an active lifestyle, is in good physical and mental health, then that person will have good innate immunity.  

There is a further layer of protection, if innate immunity is breached, and that is acquired (adaptive) immunity.  In the case of an acute, self-limiting viral infection, if the innate immune system is able to reduce the bulk of the viral load but cannot eliminate all of the virus, such that some virus pushes through and causes disease – then nature has a backup, which is our acquired (adaptive) immune system.  Acquired (adaptive) virus-specific Abs produced by immature B cells catch the particles of the virus that have breached our first line of innate immune defense and facilitate abrogation of infection by cytotoxic T cells, thereby enabling recovery from natural disease.  Furthermore, the acquired (adaptive) immune system remembers this specific event and —by maturing virus-specific memory B cells (to produce neutralizing Abs of high affinity and specificity in the future) — is able to provide durable protection against future exposure to both the original virus and a broad spectrum of viral variants. 

In the case of CoV, durable protection against infection is provided by both, the epigenetically trained poly-specific innate Abs and the S(pike)-specific Abs produced by adaptive immune system’s memory B cells. Since the innate immune response clears the bulk of viral load before the elicited S-specific Abs peak, the latter do not exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness. Based on all of the above, it follows that – even during a pandemic – natural immunity can trigger and sustain sterilizing immunity without driving immune escape. This already explains why a ‘natural’ pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral infection will spontaneously generate herd immunity and, therefore, transition into an endemic phase. In contrast, neutralizing S-specific Abs induced by C-19 vaccines may not have sufficient neutralizing capacity to prevent infection when vaccination is performed during a pandemic. This inevitably leads to selective (i.e., S-directed) immune pressure on the circulating virus.  

The innate immune system is equipped with extremely potent humoral and cellular effectors (i.e., innate Abs and natural killer cells, respectively) that are capable of preventing productive viral infection. Provided their presence in sufficiently high concentration and / or their training by previous exposure, innate Abs provide immediate, early and broad protection against several viral pathogens, including CoVs and Influenza viruses, making them a crucial non-redundant component of the humoral immune system. 

Innate Abs are produced mainly, if not exclusively, by a subset of long-lived, self-replenishing B cells termed B-1 cells. It has been suggested that the unique developmental pattern of these B-1 cells, which rests on positive selection by self-antigens, ensures production of innate Abs expressing evolutionarily important specificities that are required for recognition of common pathogen-related rather than antigen-specific signals. Different repertoires of such antibody specificities collectively operate to maximize the flexibility of the host’s first line of immune defense in response to free-circulating self-antigens and different sets of invading pathogens that share similar self-like motifs. This already explains why innate Abs for SC-2 protect against all coronaviruses, including all their variants, but also influenza virus and most likely other glycosylated viruses causing acute disease (e.g., respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus). However, B-1 cells have evolved a unique response pattern that minimizes the risk of autoimmunity.

There is no better example of how human immune intervention defies natural immunity than C-19 vaccination in children 

Children’s innate immune systems are, by their nature, robust and strong and that is why the vast majority of children who are exposed to SC-2 contract asymptomatic infection and the overwhelming majority of them are protected from severe C-19 disease, regardless of the characteristics of the SC-2 lineage they are exposed to. It is because of this innate immune system, that vaccination does not benefit children; in fact, vaccination may be detrimental in that acquired vaccine-induced Abs that are no longer capable of neutralizing highly infectious SC-2 variants may still bind to the virus and thereby outcompete naïve innate natural Abs of much lower affinity. In this way, adaptive vaccine-induced immunity, unfortunately, enables children to exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., on S protein), especially when vaccinal Abs are naturally recalled over and over again due to the dominant circulation of more infectious viral variants. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that subneutralizing concentrations of vaccinal Abs complexed with SC-2 virions can cause 1st grade Ab-dependent enhancement of disease (ADED). 1st grade ADED may be due to predominant production of afucosylated Abs. It is not known whether synthesis of afucosylated Abs could be promoted as a result of suboptimal affinity of neutralizing anti-S Abs since afucosylated Abs are known to enhance the affinity of IgG for the IgG-Fc-receptor III family (FcγRIII), found on natural killer cells (and on subsets of other cells) in the immune system.

In the case of Omicron, preponderance of non-neutralizing over neutralizing Abs renders vaccinees more susceptible to infection as compared to non-vaccinated individuals. The more their vaccinal Abs are boosted (by additional booster shots or by the circulating virus), the more vaccinees will become susceptible to infection. 

Vaccination interferes with development of herd immunity: Both naturally occurring Ab-mediated immune defenses (i.e., NK cell activation by innate Abs and cytotoxic T cell activation by acquired Abs) are capable of preventing or abrogating productive SC-2 infection and reducing transmission during a pandemic/ epidemic, thereby allowing the healthy & unvaccinated part of the population to contribute to herd immunity (naturally), which is in the public health benefit as the pandemic can only be terminated when herd immunity is achieved. This is in sharp contrast to the effect of vaccine-induced anti-S Abs, which exert selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness when present at high prevalence (mass vaccination!). In the case of Omicron, anti-S Abs are directed at both the receptor-binding domain and the N-terminal domain of the S protein (S-RBD and S-NTD, respectively); because these Abs are present at high prevalence (due to the high level of Omicron’s infectiousness in a highly vaccinated population), these Abs will exert additional immune pressure on viral infectiousness (as anti-S-RBD [Omicron] Abs also target the broadly neutralizing antigenic site within the RBD) as well as on viral virulence (as exposure to Omicron results in boosting of Abs directed against the conserved enhancing antigenic site comprised within NTD).  

Because of the important contribution of the innate immune effector cells to protecting children from productive viral infection and hence, from disease, SC-2 is an infection in children in the same way that influenza is an infection in children but neither is a childhood disease.  Children certainly catch SC-2 but due to their innate immunity the infection is mostly asymptomatic or only causing mild illness. It is not abnormal nor unusual for children to be ill or to have a day or two being unwell. Cases of severe disease in children are rare and almost no cases of death have been reported in the 1-19 age cohort. For the period 1 February 2021 to 31 December 2021, the number of deaths in England and Wales where C-19 was the only cause mentioned on the death certificate there were two males (< 1y; 15-19 y) and one female (10-14 years) according to Office for National Statistics. These findings are confirmed by the vaccine surveillance report published by UKHSA in March 2022 (see attachment). Of course, children with underlying diseases or older individuals with a weakened innate immune system may contract more severe symptoms and require hospitalization. Likewise, dominant circulation of highly infectious variants may lead to more frequent productive infection and more pronounced disease symptoms in children, as further explained below. It would be wrong, though, to conclude that this can be solved by a mass vaccination program as there can be no doubt that the fulminant expansion in prevalence of such highly infectious variants (e.g., Omicron) directly resulted from the mass vaccination program and that the continuation of this program is only going to further increase selective immune pressure and, therefore, further promote the expansion of even more infectious variants. It is important to note that in the case of Omicron, lack of neutralizing capacity exhibited by vaccine-induced Abs has now led to enhanced viral infectiousness in vaccinees, i.e., vaccinees are more susceptible to infection as compared to the non-vaccinated. This already explains why vaccine effectiveness has now dramatically declined, even in children (see also attachment at the bottom). When the virus breaks through the first line of children’s immune defense (i.e., the innate Ab-mediated immune defense), their immune system engages the next line of natural immune defense, i.e., cytotoxic T cells, the activation of which is likely triggered by the internalization into dendritic cells of virions that are complexed by S-specific Abs (IgMs) produced by immature B cells. In this way, the virus is eliminated in ways that do not generate selective immune pressure on viral infectiousness while enabling training of poly-specific Ab-producing innate immune effector cells. People who recover from C-19 disease (i.e., the overwhelming majority of children who contract symptomatic SC-2 infection) will ultimately develop full-fledged IgGs that rapidly neutralize the virus (including a broad spectrum of variants) upon re-exposure, whereas the trained innate immune system will take care of the remaining viral load by virtue of poly-specific innate Abs that have acquired a higher level of affinity for more infectious circulating variants. 

The statements from governments and vaccination stakeholders that vaccination of children will provide them with improved protection from contracting severe disease defies nature and how our natural immune defense successfully deals with natural infection by enveloped glycosylated viruses known to predominantly cause acute self-limiting infection or disease. This includes training of innate Ab-secreting immune effector cells, which enables more effective recognition of SC-2 and all its variants and thereby improves protection against disease. Vaccine-induced protection, however, only protects against severe disease. In addition, this type of protection will likely be of short duration as it comes with substantial immune pressure on viral virulence.  

Once Omicron will be replaced by a new family of variants that can overcome this immune pressure, the vaccines will no longer protect against severe disease. It is the polyreactive Abs in the innate immune system that protect healthy children and youngsters from (severe) disease. This mechanism of protection is fundamentally different from the one protecting vaccinated from severe disease.  All non-live vaccines against acute infectious diseases are Ab-based.  Ab-based viral vaccines protect against disease but never protect against severe disease only. Furthermore, viral vaccines that enhance the susceptibility of vaccinees to infection while protecting them from (severe) disease have not been described. It is, therefore, highly likely that the in vivo protection against severe disease – as claimed by the current C-19 vaccines – is not due to S-specific neutralizing Abs but to S-specific non-neutralizing Abs that are capable of both, enhancing viral infectiousness and hampering viral virulence. This particularly applies to infections caused by Omicron, which is known to be largely resistant to potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs.  When present in sufficient concentration, high affinity, S-specific Abs readily outcompete low affinity, multi-specific Abs for binding to the same antigen. Given the high viral infection rate and hence, great risk of re-exposure (and, therefore, natural boosting), it is reasonable to assume that many of those that are vaccinated experience long-lived functional suppression of their protective, polyreactive innate Abs and are thereby left to rely on vaccine-induced Abs immunity for protection against severe C-19 disease while becoming more susceptible to SC-2 infection and possibly also to infections caused by other glycosylated enveloped viruses that are normally recognized by the same innate Abs. This particularly applies to children as their innate immune effector cells are largely naïve for lack of immune training. In addition, as already mentioned above, protection against severe diseases is likely going to be short-lived due to the ongoing natural selection of new immune escape variants. 

Children are particularly susceptible to immunological side-effects of the C-19 vaccines

Innate Abs bind with lower affinity to SC-2 than vaccinal Abs.  Vaccinal Abs that fail to neutralize the virus but are still able to bind the virus may, therefore, diminish or even suppress binding of relevant (i.e., CoV-reactive) innate Abs to SC-2.  As the vaccinal Abs are antigen-specific, they have a higher affinity for the virus and can outcompete polyreactive innate Abs, even if they do not neutralize it (like with Omicron, as discussed above). When vaccinal Abs are boosted, for example because of repeated exposure to ‘more infectious’ circulating variants, they can suppress innate self-protective Abs for a prolonged period of time. Prolonged suppression of relevant innate Abs by vaccinal Abs could lead to tolerance towards other respiratory viral pathogens and hence, cause enhanced susceptibility to other acute viral respiratory infections.  

Innate self-protective Abs play an important role in discarding antigens derived from degraded or degenerated autologous host cells. Hence, prolonged suppression of relevant innate Abs by non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs may lead to lack of elimination of such altered self-antigens and, therefore, cause the host immune system to start attacking the body’s own cells / tissues. This implies that vaccination of children in the presence of variants that are largely resistant to neutralizing Abs could be at risk of causing autoimmune diseases.

It is not only the fact there is no beneficial effect to receive the vaccine and that a child may become more susceptible to other viral diseases or even autoimmune diseases but there is also a serious risk that certain vaccines, in particular genetic C-19 vaccines (e.g., mRNA vaccines), could already harm the child’s health shortly after their administration by causing immune-inflammatory side-effects (e.g., myocarditis). Side-effects that occur shortly after vaccine administration are of particular concern with genetic C-19 vaccines and merely add to the risks that should be taken into account in the risk/ benefit analysis of genetically based C-19 vaccines. 

Highly infectious variants are likely to re-infect previously asymptomatically infected individuals shortly after their first exposure. Since previous asymptomatic infection raises short-lived concentrations of S-specific, non-neutralizing Abs, these individuals may become more susceptible to SC-2 infection. This particularly applies to young children as their innate Abs are largely naïve (i.e., produced by immature B cells) and can, therefore, readily be suppressed by S-specific Abs in young children. It is, therefore, not surprising that a pandemic of more infectious variants comes with an enhanced infection rate in young children. Because mass vaccination has resulted in the expansion in prevalence of more infectious variants, the above-mentioned observation is to be considered an (indirect) immunological side-effect of the mass vaccination program. Public Health authorities have argued that children are an important source of viral transmission. They don’t seem to understand that mass vaccination is the culprit of enhanced viral transmission, not the solution. Furthermore, it is currently unknown whether premature susceptibility to viral infections that innate Abs normally protect against could pose a new threat to the health and well-being of young children. It should, therefore, be investigated whether the enhanced incidence of hepatitis in young children (e.g., ages 2-5 years)., for example, could possibly result from such enhanced susceptibility. Data from UKHSA have shown, though, that children can rapidly mitigate their enhanced susceptibility to infection by virtue of training their innate immune system. This already explains why vaccine effectiveness has now become negative in these younger age groups as well (as already mentioned above). Previous asymptomatic/ mild infection does not prevent innate immune training as this type of infection does not prime the host immune system. This provides additional evidence that there is no health benefit in vaccinating young children.    

As mRNA vaccines lead to uncontrolled in vivo synthesis of a protein (i.e., spike) that is decorated with self-glycans, vaccine-related immune inflammatory side-effects could occur many months after vaccination (expression of S protein has been reported to persist for up to several months) and may manifest in several different organs (expression of S protein has been demonstrated in several different organs). It cannot be ruled out that – in the presence of S-specific Abs – enhanced expression of S protein on the surface of transfected host tissue cells triggers fusion of those cells with healthy, non-transfected host cells and thereby leads to formation of syncytia and histopathological changes in general. Cell surface-expressed S protein has been shown to trigger trans fusion between infected and non-infected host tissue cells. 

As soon as you start vaccinating with non-live vaccines, then acquired immunity is being engaged while natural, Ab-mediated immunity is bypassed. This is of course the intention of being vaccinated: so that a more specific antibody response can more effectively deal with the infection.  However, if the virus a person has been vaccinated against significantly changes, then the specific adaptive Abs generated for that virus by the vaccine may no longer recognize it as well as before and it will fail to neutralize it.  On the other hand, the broader innate immune response that may have been able to deal with the changed virus is crowded out by the adaptive vaccine-induced immune response, leaving one vulnerable to significant infection by viral variants or 1st ADED, the latter as a potential result of poor binding of neutralizing Abs to heterologous antigenic sites. From an immunological viewpoint, it is reasonable to assume that this is particularly relevant in individuals who are vaccinated shortly before their primary exposure to a viral variant (i.e., the S protein of which differs from the one provided by the vaccine) or whose innate immune effector cells are poorly trained, as is regularly the case in young children. But even if there is a reasonable fit between the circulating variant and the elicited S-specific Abs, basic virology teaches that – unless live attenuated vaccines are used – mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic of a highly mutable virus such as SC-2, for example, is a recipe for immune escape and that viral variants that escape potentially neutralizing Abs will expand in prevalence in the population.

Vaccination of children in particular drives immune escape and dramatically diminishes the chance for generating herd immunity

When administered during a pandemic, C-19 vaccines cannot diminish viral transmission in the population, and can, therefore, not contribute to herd immunity.  Young age groups have a particularly high capacity for contributing to herd immunity as they have strong functional innate Ab capacity and hence, a high potential for mediating broad Ab-mediated sterilizing immunity against CoV (presumably via non-selective innate IgM-mediated activation of NK cells and/ or activation of MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic CD8+ T cells mediated by broadly cross-reactive, acquired IgM). As vaccine-induced, S-specific neutralizing IgGs readily outcompete naïve innate Abs in young children, the selective immune pressure they place on viral infectiousness will only increase. As a result, ‘more infectious’ immune escape variants will enjoy a strong competitive advantage, which will accelerate their dominant propagation in the host population. By vaccinating children, their individual health is not only being potentially harmed but so is public health generally – compromising innate immunity of large parts of the population prevents herd immunity from being established and further enhances the adaptation of more infectious immune escape variants to the highly vaccinated population, thereby accelerating their dominance in the host population.  Children’s healthy immune systems are the reservoirs to eliminate the virus and constitute an important source for generating herd immunity and diminishing the likelihood for more infectious variants to dominate.

Omicron serves as an excellent live attenuated vaccine in healthy unvaccinated children. Vaccinating them with any of the current C-19 vaccines will only further increase instead of mitigating the selective immune pressure exerted by highly vaccinated populations and unquestionably take away the last glimmer of hope for generating herd immunity  

We can only get rid of the pandemic when we achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity is population immunity and by definition is only achieved when the viral transmission rate is low enough to ensure that the vulnerable people (i.e., those with a weak or immune suppressed health status) have a low probability of becoming infected. That is, the vulnerable are automatically protected by the herd immunity generated by the bulk of the population.

In my opinion, I consider that we had an opportunity to achieve herd immunity at the start of this pandemic which was interrupted by lock downs until mass vaccination started – these measures meant that the opportunity to achieve herd immunity in the early stages was lost. I consider that the opportunity to achieve herd immunity has now shrunk even further with the arrival of the Omicron variant because this variant has acquired a substantial level of resistance to the vaccinal Abs.  As a result, non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs are now rendering the virus more infectious in vaccinees, which explains why the vast majority of the population is now more susceptible to infection. That is exactly the opposite of what mass vaccination was supposed to do. In the unvaccinated, however, Omicron is serving as a live attenuated vaccine in that it stimulates natural immunity in ways that do not discriminate between SC-2 variants and don’t exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., via Ab-mediated abrogation of infection by polyreactive, MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic immune cells). This mechanism typically contributes to building herd immunity and termination of a pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral disease. This means that only the unvaccinated part of the population is now contributing to herd immunity but, unfortunately, it also means that the latter is no longer within reach because large parts of the population have now become vaccinated.

Another benefit of live attenuated vaccines (i.e., Omicron in the unvaccinated) is that they are able to train innate immune effector cells, which therefore can even improve their recognition of the virus to ameliorate the protective effect of innate Abs. Immune effector cells that secrete innate Abs can be trained just like other innate immune effectors can be trained: by repeated exposure to what is called ‘pathogen-associated molecular patterns’. This is, in fact, nicely shown by the data published by the UK Health Security Agency, previously Public Health England and Public Health Scotland – where they have shown that basically with aging and also with more exposure to the pathogen, the number of cases in the unvaccinated people was dramatically reduced – even to an extent such that vaccine effectiveness has now  become negative in the vast majority of age groups (see above). 

No single healthy child should be considered eligible for C-19 vaccination, neither from a public nor from an individual health viewpoint

As vaccine-induced anti-S Abs cannot prevent productive viral infections in the host population, they cannot prevent natural selection of more infectious variants. Consequently, the induction of vaccinal Abs in large parts of the population promotes selective transmission of ‘more infectious’ variants and hence, prevents herd immunity from being established. The more people we vaccinate, the more and the faster the population will exert immune pressure on the life cycle of the virus. This is now at high risk of promoting the expansion of new variants that are not only more infectious but also much more virulent.
In contrast, naturally induced immunity sterilizes the virus in that it prevents or abrogates productive infection by circulating variants in ways that don’t provide more infectious variants with a competitive fitness advantage. Naturally induced immunity can, therefore, dramatically diminish viral transmission. This is, by the way, what explains the rapid/ steep decline in the infection, mortality and morbidity rate after a previous surge in cases during a natural pandemic. In the rather exceptional event that a non-vaccinated healthy child (i.e., without underlying diseases or immune deficiencies) would contract moderate disease, the child will not only recover from the disease but also develop acquired immunity, which is long-lived, directed against a diversified spectrum of SC-2 variants and will protect that child, even when the titers of acquired Abs are low (as this will enable trained innate Abs to come into the play). On the exceptional occasion that Omicron would break through the innate immune defense of a healthy child, or for that matter any unvaccinated healthy individual, to cause more serious disease, the patient can be successfully treated – that has always been acknowledged and can successfully be dealt with by early multidrug treatment. In this way, even patients who are at risk of developing serious disease can not only successfully recover but even contribute to herd immunity. The immune status of a person who recovered from C-19 is, therefore, very different from the one induced by a C-19 vaccine. Vaccinal anti-S Abs have a narrower spectrum and are, therefore, not only less protective towards infection by viral variants but also suspicious of causing ADED in case their binding to S on the circulating variant is too weak to neutralize the virus. 

Omicron is now increasingly generating durable anti-infective immunity in the unvaccinated part of the population. However, given the infection-enhancing effect of non-neutralizing vaccinal Abs in vaccinees and their strong and frequent recall as a result of natural boosting (via Omicron!), herd immunity is no longer within reach in highly vaccinated populations. The more people we vaccinate, the more and the faster the population will exert immune pressure on the life cycle of the virus. This is now at high risk of promoting the expansion of new variants that are not only more infectious but also much more virulent. Along the same lines of reasoning, we should not vaccinate against the Omicron variant as mass vaccination against Omicron too will boost titers of non-neutralizing, i.e., infection-enhancing Abs and thereby inevitably further increase selective immune pressure on the virus and foster the propagation of far more dangerous variants that fully resist potentially neutralizing Abs. For this reason, it is vital that we leave healthy, unvaccinated people alone, that we leave healthy unvaccinated children alone, and that – instead – we diminish viral transmission by conducting large-scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis campaigns in highly vaccinated countries while protecting the vulnerable and enabling their access to early multidrug treatment.

Summary and overall conclusion

In summary, we can conclude as summarized below: 

Because innate immune effector cells in young children are not trained to deal with highly infectious viruses, their innate Abs harbouring a repertoire of specificities targeted at enveloped glycosylated viruses can be readily outcompeted by high-affinity vaccinal Abs directed at S protein, even if these Abs do no longer neutralize the virus. Consequently, vaccination of children turns off their broadly poly-specific natural anti-viral immunity in exchange for S-specific vaccinal Abs that are becoming increasingly useless since their neutralizing capacity becomes more and more eroded because of enhanced escape of the mutated S protein on SC-2 from highly specific, potentially neutralizing Abs (a trend that has been clearly confirmed by molecular epidemiologists) while outcompeting protective innate Abs. Low vaccinal Ab titers are, therefore, at high risk of allowing for breakthrough infections in children who are exposed to viral variants. 

In addition, vaccinal Abs with diminished neutralizing capacity towards SC-2 variants are likely to enhance the susceptibility of vaccinated children to 1st grade ADED and thereby making S-specific vaccinal Abs in vaccinees, and particularly in children, more dangerous. 

Enhanced suppression of innate Abs by a sustained (pandemic!) high prevalence of elevated anti-S Abs in vaccinated children would also turn them into an excellent breeding ground for more infectious immune escape variants while likely rendering them more susceptible to other viral infections and auto-immune diseases. 

On the basis of the above, there can be no doubt that the conclusion of the risk/ benefit analysis strongly and unambiguously argues against vaccinating children against SC-2 for the risk of administering C-19 vaccines to healthy children outweighs the benefit. Therefore, there is no benefit in synthetically protecting children with vaccines when their natural immunity produces a long-lasting immune response that is much safer and more efficient, both from an individual and public health viewpoint. Defying the child’s natural immune defense against SC-2, and several other acute self-limiting viral infections (e.g., Influenza), is an unforgivable sin!

Attachment:

UK Health Security Agency

COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report

Released March 31 2022

Data is March 1 – March 27

Summary of cases, hospitalizations and deaths: 

One can view the back releases of this weekly report and see the trend toward diminished vaccine effectiveness emerge and grow steadily stronger since that time. 

Cases

  • For ages 18 and over, vaccination increased the rate of infection regardless of the number of doses, sometimes over 400% 
  • For ages under 18, 1 or 2 doses slightly increased the rate of infection
  • For ages under 18, 3 or more doses (200,000 people out of over 64 million in the country) reduced rate of infection by only 30%

Hospitalizations

  • For ages over 18, 3 or more doses decreased rate of hospitalizations by at most 40%, sometimes not at all
  • For ages over 29, 1 or 2 doses increased rate of hospitalization for every age, sometimes by over 200% 

Deaths

  • For ages over 18, 3 or more doses decreased rate of death by at most 58%, but some age groups were as low as 16%
  • For ages over 29, 1 or 2 doses increased rate of death for nearly every age group, often by over 200%

Overall, these data suggest that taking these vaccines greatly increases the spread of COVID.

That these vaccines give at most a mediocre reduction of negative outcomes, and only for a short time.

That these vaccines in every case cause a greater magnitude, long term, increase in negative outcome.

The data above are relate to COVID, not to any side-effects of the vaccines.

The LibreOffice spreadsheets are depicted below. They reflect the percent chance of case/hospitalization/death in (fully or partially) vaccinated vs unvaccinated. 

March 2022 Chart of UK Case Rate % vs Unvaccinated by Doses (< 18 years):

The raw data can be found in the tables below.

Page 16 details the number of vaccinated individuals for each group with data covering the same dates:

Data is on page 85:

80 and over Population: 2,725,031

3 Doses = 2,489,360

2 Doses = 2,566,995 – 2,489,360 = 77,635

1 Dose = 2,606,360 – 2,566,995 = 39,365

Unvaccinated = 2,725,031 – 2,606,360 = 118,671

70-79 Population: 4,979,828

3 Doses = 4,554,742

2 Doses = 4,705,335 – 4,554,742 = 150,593

1 Dose =  4,742,016 – 4,705,335 = 36,681

Unvaccinated = 4,979,828 – 4742016 = 237,812

60-69 Population: 6,420,555

3 Doses = 5,428,766

2 Doses = 5,818,926 – 5,428,766 = 390,160

1 Dose = 5,894,275 – 5,818,926 = 75,349

Unvaccinated = 6,420,555 – 5,894,275 = 526,280

50-59 Population: 8,374,446

3 Doses = 6,380,544

2 Doses = 7,251,305 – 6,380,544 = 870,761

1 Dose =  7,391,008 – 7,251,305 = 139,703

Unvaccinated =  8,374,446 – 7,391,008 = 983,438

40-49 Population: 8,228,211

3 Doses = 5,048,918

2 Doses = 6,395,752 – 5,048,918 = 1,346,834

1 Dose = 6,612,527 – 6,395,752 = 216,775

Unvaccinated = 8,228,211 –  6,612,527 = 1,615,684

30-39 Population: 9,478,334

3 Doses = 4,328,966

2 Doses =  6,405,034 – 4,328,966  = 2,076,068

1 Dose =  6,791,732 – 6,405,034 = 386,698

Unvaccinated =   9,478,334 –  6,791,732&nbsp

COVID-19ChildrenImmunologyVaccination

Comments (1)What do you think?

0/3000Publish

therealrestoreinc

Apr. 21, 2022, 7:16 a.m.

Here’s a comment for you…There are unvaccinated adults among us who have not had one COVID-19 shot and are alive and well. Many of us over 60, even 70 years old are loving our natural immune systems’ gift to us and in gratitude have chosen to care for the immune system instead of provoking it artificially with synthetic mRNA. We are those childlike COVID warriors. Re: Quote “Omicron is serving as a live attenuated vaccine in that it stimulates natural immunity in ways that do not discriminate between SC-2 variants and don’t exert immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., via Ab-mediated abrogation of infection by polyreactive, MHC-unrestricted cytotoxic immune cells). This mechanism typically contributes to building herd immunity and termination of a pandemic of an acute, self-limiting viral disease. This means that only the unvaccinated part of the population is now contributing to herd immunity…” LEAVE THE FOLLOWING OUT, THIS REST OF THE QUOTE – BECAUSE IT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY TRUE [“…but, unfortunately, it also means that the latter is no longer within reach because large parts of the population have now become vaccinated.”] and EMPHASIZE THIS QUOTE: “…leave healthy, unvaccinated people alone, that we leave healthy unvaccinated children alone, and that – instead – we diminish viral transmission by conducting large-scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis campaigns…”

Reply

Company

About UsTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyContact Us

Publish on TrialSite

Writing Best PracticesWhy TrialSite?

TrialSiteNews

159 W Broadway, Suite 200

Salt Lake City, UT 84101

Jun 15 2022

Russian Oil Boycott Fails


Armstring Economics Blog/Energy Re-Posted Jun 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The West thought they’d cripple Russia’s economy when they stopped buying Russian oil. Gas prices in the West are on the rise and at unsustainable levels. Meanwhile, Putin is having the last laugh as he is now selling more oil at a higher price point.

In April, Russian oil exports rose by 620,000 b/d to 8.1 million b/d. India (+730,000 b/d) and Turkey (+180,000 b/d) helped to offset the international embargo, while the EU remained the largest importer despite a sharp reduction in shipments. The IEA reported that Russian oil exports rose over 50% YoY during the first four months of the year.

Oil jumped in price last week from $92 per barrel to $122. Gas in the US was $2.10 under Trump. Biden took office and prices rose to $2.37 within the first two months due to a series of decisions that prevented America from remaining energy independent. Before Russia even invaded, gas reached $3.51 per gallon, and now the national average is surpassing $5.00. The boycott has completely backfired on the West and has helped strengthen the Russian economy.

Jun 15 2022

Democrats May Not Endorse Biden in 2024


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Jun 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

The Democrats may not back Biden for reelection in 2024. They do not particularly care that he is destroying the country, but his record-low approval rating is bad for the party at large. Over the weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) all but admitted that the Democrats are not eager to support Biden running for a second term. AOC said the primary goal is to secure the majority at the moment.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” AOC told a reporter at CNN, “But I think if the president has a vision, then that’s something we’re all certainly willing to entertain and examine when the time comes.” AOC, who backed Bernie over Biden during the last election, said she believes the president has been doing “a very good job so far.” Yet, she refused to give a definitive answer.

A recent New York Times article revealed that at least 50 party members are vocally frustrated with the current administration.  “Midway through the 2022 primary season, many Democratic lawmakers and party officials are venting their frustrations with President Biden’s struggle to advance the bulk of his agenda, doubting his ability to rescue the party from a predicted midterm trouncing and increasingly viewing him as an anchor that should be cut loose in 2024,” the article noted.

The midterm elections will reveal whether the nation is beginning to lean to the right and likely will determine the possibility of the Democrats endorsing Biden in the next presidential election.

Jun 15 2022

AI & the Future


Armstrong Economics Blog/AI Computers Re-Posted Jun 15, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Klaus Schwab’s view of the future and Artificial Intelligence is seriously flawed. He argues that the fusing of the political, physical, digital, and biological worlds will have a transformative impact on every facet of human existence. He insists that this will range from the way we live our lives, the manner in which we will work, the reconfiguration of economic models, the products we sell, and I believe his self-delusion, the power to extend our lives indefinitely. Of course, his cohort, Yuval Noah Harari, dreams of converting society into programmed robots. Meanwhile, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla dreams of putting chips in every pill that confirms to a central database that you took his latest creation.

Schwab’s Fourth Industrial Revolution is seriously flawed for he has no understanding of actual real AI programming. Yes, insofar as AI is concerned, I do not believe in the view that if you throw in mountains of data, somehow the computer will evolve and figure it all out and come up with a force or conclusion. They did that at IBM with Big Blue. They thought it would find the cure for cancer – it failed. There is something more that makes our brain function. It is NOT just a neural net and consciousness somehow emerges because of all the connections. Granted, they try to mimic the brain and look upon us as simply a biological lifeform without actually understanding there is something much deeper.

Perhaps the night you suddenly fell in love with your partner. You were out to dinner, and your unconscious mind actually recorded everything — the place, the food, the music, what they wore. You consciously are not actually noticing all these variables. But years later, you hear that song, taste that same food, or revisit the place. Suddenly, without even trying to remember, the event is relived. You can close your eyes and see the event as if it were a recorded movie. Our brain is actually recording everything without us even trying. Creating a neural net and dumping all this information in there does not recreate that ability.

Sigmund Freud (1856- 1939) and Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) dived very deeply into the construct of the mind. Their view of our unconscious was the result of very deep self-analysis. Socrates is different. I created pathways and taught it how to analyze. I spend a lot of time self-analyzing how I would trade, and what I would look at as an international hedge fund manager. I had to understand how the mind actually worked both on the conscious and unconscious levels.

Because I knew I was not going to be a world globe trotter again, I got a dog. She has taught me about how the mind also works. She thinks. She has a strategy. She has the same range of emotions that we have from boredom to excitement. I can see her thinking. She clearly communicates through her eyes and body language. There is an innate ability to communicate with dogs that has evolved over the centuries, which is one of the primary reasons our canine-human love affair has gone on for centuries. There is a distinct dog-human interspecies understanding that is extraordinary, but it also is a glimpse into ourselves. She anticipates where I will go when I get up and will gently let me know when she is hungry. But to my astonishment, she will play ball, but then will try to make me go fetch. She would bang her bowl if it was out of the water, but then if she wanted me to stop working, she would bang the bowl because she knew that sound would cause me to come out of the office.

There is a whole other aspect to not just our mind, but how even a dog thinks, which reveals to me that the failure in AI with machine learning is that it is one-dimensional. There is a far deeper level of activity beyond our conscious mind that they try to duplicate with neural nets. My dog has indeed reinforced my understanding of how to really construct AI, which is substantially different from the one-dimensional neural net.

My dog understands so many words that it is astonishing. I was talking with a friend and just mentioned the word “dog,” and she got up and immediately ran to the window to see what dog dared to enter her domain. If I say we are going shopping, she goes to the front door. If I say we are going to take a walk, she runs to the back door. She obviously understands far more language than I ever expected.  A 2020 study by researchers at Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary discovered that, while dogs may not pick up minute details in human speech, they can, in fact, comprehend their owners’ most basic words.

What she has taught me is that even a dog has a conscious and unconscious mind. She dreams as we go. It is really amazing when you pay attention. This is just far more involved than creating a one-dimensional neural net, throwing a bunch of data in, shaking (not stirring), and hoping for the best. Their theory that accelerating the ability to calculate and adding parameters to models was not really a game-changer. The models are faster, and playing a game of chess or Jeopardy, they can beat a human because they have the ability to test every possible outcome in a few minutes. But that is the problem. They can wow everyone with speed, but they CAN NOT create something new. That was the failure of IBM’s Big Blue.

Creativity REQUIRED imagination, and expanding the nodes and speed does not lead to imagination. Without imagination, we cannot create a real game-changer. Thus, all the AI that Schwab cheers will lead the world into his Fourth Industrial Revolution is missing the critical ingredient, which does not exist in the conscious mind but is buried in the unconscious realm where we hide our talents, dreams, and our long lost memories. This is why Socrates has provided forecasting that is even original.

So I have taken a different approach. Socrates is NOT a one-dimensional neural net. Don’t worry. It will not suddenly come alive and decide to wipe out the inferior species known as humans. But the world Schwab envisions is not real. It only leads, not to the critical ability of creativity, which exists only in freedom, but to oppression and conformity precisely as the result of Marx’s experiment we call socialism/communism. Communism collapsed because it suppressed creativity. That also necessitates FREEDOM.

Jun 15 2022

Five Down, Five Term Tom Rice Primaried in South Carolina


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 14, 2022 | Sundance

The South Carolina republican club keeps an open primary election so they can coordinate with Democrats on key races.  The larger goal is to retain power.  As planned, democrats in/around Charleston voted to support Club candidate Nancy Mace as part of the power control.   However, at least Tom Rice was eliminated in district 07.

(Via Politico) […] Rep. Tom Rice, one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach the former president, lost his primary to Trump-endorsed state Rep. Russell Fry. It’s the first time this year that a Republican impeachment backer has faced a challenger backed by Trump — and the results were emphatic, with Rice’s party support crashing to just a quarter of the vote. (read more)

Jun 15 2022

Economic Security is National Security, and the Foundation of Economic and National Security is Energy Policy, Biden is a Threat to National Security


Posted originally on the Conservative house on June 14, 2022 | Sundance

Economic security is the foundation of national security.  When the government takes action that destabilizes our economy, every element of national security is put at risk.  We are experiencing that right now as we suffer through Joe Biden’s intentionally flawed energy policy that is destroying the U.S. economy and everyone within it.

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.”

~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Never has that Machiavelli quote been more apropos than when considering the MAGA movement and the rise of Donald Trump.

Thankfully, we are now in an era when the largest coalition of American voters have awakened to the reality that, to quote the former president: “Economic Security is National Security.”

As we live through the economic mess of a Biden administration hell bent on eroding the middle class of the United States, there are numerous pundits contemplating 2024 Republican presidential candidates other than Donald Trump; consider this group the lukewarm defenders Machiavelli noted.

At the same time the leftist coalition, writ large, are apoplectic about the base of the Republican Party now belonging to Donald Trump.  This group consists of those affluent Wall Street agents and politicians set on retaining the profits derived from decades of institutional objectives.

Institutional Democrats hate Trump, and institutional Republicans are lukewarm, at best, in defending Trump.  Both wings of the DC UniParty fear Trump.  Extreme efforts at control are a reaction to fear.  In this outline, I rise to explain why Donald Trump is the only option for the America First MAGA coalition; and I make my case not on supposition, but on empirical reference points that most should understand.

Everything, is about the economics of it.

If you accept that at its essential core elements the phrase “economic security is national security” is true – meaning the lives of the American citizen, person, worker, individual or family are best when their economic position is secure – then any potential leader for our nation must be able to initiate policies that directly touch the economics of a person’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  As a result, economic security and economic policy must be the fulcrum of their platform.

Now, look around and ask yourself this question: “What separated Donald J. Trump from the remaining field of 17 GOP candidates in 2016?”   An honest top-line answer would be immigration (border control), and his views on American economic policy.   In essence, what set Donald Trump apart from all other candidates was his view on the U.S. economy, and that was the driving factor behind ‘Make America Great Again’, MAGA.

Now, look around.  Look at every other potential candidate for political office. Is there another person in the field of your political view who comes from the starting point that economic security is national security?

Put aside all other issues and shiny things that may change from moment to moment as the political winds swirl and settle, and ask yourself that question.  Who can deliver MAGA, if not the central person who lives, eats, sleeps and thinks about U.S. economic security from every angle at every second of every hour of every day.  That’s Donald J. Trump.

Trump knows the extremely consequential sequence of BIG things that lead to a structurally strong American economic foundation.

We don’t have to guess at whether Trump can deliver on that policy sequence, we have reference points.

♦ Donald Trump knew that independent U.S. energy policy was a condition for a strong U.S. economy. He also knew there would be negative consequences to allies and partners if the U.S. energy policy was independent.  Trump knew that OPEC nations in general would be negatively impacted, and he knew that Saudi Arabia specifically would be weakened geopolitically.   That is why the very first foreign trip by Donald Trump was to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States that make up the majority of OPEC.

Look at what President Trump did on that trip.  First, he assured Saudi Arabia that the United States would stand with the Gulf Cooperation Council and Mid-East nations as it pertained to their security.  Trump knew making the largest energy consuming nation independent from foreign oil would be adverse to the economic stability of the Mid-East, and as an outcome, could open a door to destabilization from extremist or ideological groups therein.

Take away top-line economic revenue from Saudi et al, and the leaders of those oil economies have a more difficult time remaining stable and controlling unrest and extremism.  Generations of Arab citizens know nothing other than the trickle down benefits of oil exports.  President Trump knew this, and he approached our need for energy independence by first assuring the Arab states of his commitment to their stability and safety.

President Trump delivered to those states a list of approved arms and defense agreements during that trip.  In essence, what he was doing was putting the promise of security into actual delivery of tools to retain that security.  Actions speak louder than words.  President Trump also promised to work diligently on peace in the region; a real substantive and genuine peace that would provide security in the big picture.

Over the course of the next few years, Trump delivered on that set of promises with the Abraham Accords.   Yes, economic security as national security applies to our allies as well as ourselves.  Again, actions speak louder than words.

With the U.S. energy independence program in place, President Trump then moved in sequence to the next big thing.

♦ Donald Trump moved to face the challenge of China.   A major shift in U.S. policy that is likely considered the biggest geopolitical shift in the last 75 years.  Trump strategically began with Trade Authority 302 national security Steel and Aluminum tariffs at 25% and 10% not only toward China but targeted globally.

The entire multinational system was stunned at the bold step with tariffs.   But remember, before Trump went to Saudi Arabia, he held a meeting with Chairman Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago.  The global trade world was shocked by the tariff announcement, but I’ll bet you a doughnut Chairman Xi was not.

That February 2017 meeting, only one month after his inauguration, was President Trump graciously informing Chairman Xi, in the polite manner that respectful business people do, that a new era in the U.S-China relationship was about to begin.  New trade agreements, new terms and conditions were to be expected in the future.  The tariff announcement hit Wall Street hard, but not Beijing – who knew it was likely.

U.S. financial pundits proclaimed the sky was surely falling.  These tariffs would cause prices to skyrocket, the global order of all things around trade was under attack by Trump.  They waxed and shouted about supply chains being complicated and intertwined amid the modern manufacturing era that was too complex for President Trump to understand with such a heavy handed tariff hammer.   Remember all of that?  Remember how cars were going to cost thousands more, and beer kegs would forever be lost because the orange man had just triggered steel and aluminum tariffs?

Did any of that happen?  No. Of course it didn’t. Actually, the opposite was true and no one could even fathom it.  Communist China first responded by subsidizing all of their industries targeted by the tariffs with free energy and raw materials, etc.  China triggered an immediate reaction to lower their own prices to offset tariffs.  Beijing did not want the heavy industries and factories to start back up again in the U.S, so they reacted with measures to negate the tariff impact.

China’s economy started to feel the pressure and panda was not happy.  Eventually, as the tariffs expanded beyond Steel and Aluminum to other specific segments and categories, China devalued their currency to lower costs even further for U.S. importers.  The net result was something no one could have imagined.  With lower prices, and increased dollar strength, we began importing all Chinese products at cheaper rates than before the tariffs were triggered.  Yes, we began importing deflation.  No one saw that coming…. but Trump did.

While all that initial U.S-China trade shock was taking place, Donald Trump took his next foreign trip to… wait for it…. Southeast Asia.

Just like in the example of the trip to Saudi Arabia, economically-minded Trump told partners and leaders in the export producing countries of Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Vietnam, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and ASEAN nations to prepare for additional business and new trade agreements with the U.S., as factories inside China might start to decouple.   Look at how they responded, they did exactly what Trump said would be in their best interests.

To seriously gather the focus of this SE Asia group, President Trump started direct talks with North Korea and Chairman Kim Jong-un for peace and regional stability.  It’s easy to forget just how stunning this was at the time, but generations of people in Asia were jaw-agape at the U.S. President confronting China, engaging with North Korea, and opening his arms to new trade deals with ASEAN partners.

On the world stage of geopolitics and global trade, any one of these moves would be a monumental legacy initiative all by itself.  But together, simultaneously, you can see how the entire continent physically stopped midstride and stood staring at this, this man, this American President, who was just about to step across the Demilitarized Zone in North Korea and shake hands with Chairman Kim…. and, wait for it…. they are smiling.

√ Energy security triggered and friends in Mid-East supported.

√ Mid-East peace initiatives triggered.

√ A return of heavy industry and manufacturing security triggered.

√ A confrontation of Chinese economic influence triggered.

√ Stability between South Korea and North Korea, triggered.

√ New trade deals and economic partnerships with Japan and South Korea, triggered.

And then, as if that was not enough… just as multinational investment groups started realizing they needed to change their outlooks and drop the decades long view of the U.S. as a “service driven economy”… just as they realized they needed to start investing domestically inside the United States for their own growth and financial security… as if all that wasn’t enough… President Trump kicks off an entirely new trade deal and renegotiated standard for all North American trade via NAFTA.

We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can put together a program to ensure Economic Security is National Security.  We don’t have to guess at whether Donald Trump can deliver on economic policy.  We don’t have guess if Trump’s policy platform, proposals and initiatives would be successful.  We have the experience of it.  We have the results of it.  We have felt the success of it.

We also don’t need to guess at who is the best candidate to lead Making America Great Again, we already know who that is.

There is no other 2024 Presidential Candidate, who I am aware of, who could possibly achieve what Donald John Trump has achieved, or who could even fathom contemplating how to achieve a quarter of what President Trump achieved.

Governor Ron DeSantis has a lot of really good skills and policies on the domestic front unique to his position in Florida; however, it is not a slight toward him to point out he has never expressed any larger economic proposal that would give any confidence in a national economic policy.

Look at the sum total of it, and there’s so much more that could be outlined to what Donald Trump achieved and could yet still achieve, it’s not even a close question.

And that my friends is exactly why Donald Trump is under relentless attack from both wings of the UniParty in DC.  Additionally, it is clear the Wall Street Republicans are trying to position Ron DeSantis as an alternative to another Trump term.  Look carefully at the current advocates for DeSantis, Nikki Haley and/or Kristi Noem, and you will note every one of those early voices are attached to favorable Wall Street politics and multinational corporate advocacy.

Look at what Donald J. Trump was able to achieve while he was under constant political attack.  Just imagine what Trump 2.0 would deliver.

They, the leftist Democrats and Wall Street Republicans, are yet again absolutely petrified of that.

Jun 15 2022

Election Night in South Carolina, Nevada, Maine and North Dakota – Results and Open Discussion Thread


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 14, 2022 | Sundance

Today there are primary elections in Nevada, South Carolina, Maine, North Dakota and Texas’ 34th congressional district.

South Carolina, polls close at 7pm ET. Maine polls close at 8pm ET. Texas’ 34th CD polls close at 8pm ET. North Dakota, polls close at 8pm and 9pm ET. Nevada, polls close at 10pm ET.

Many people will be watching South Carolina to see if anti-MAGA Nancy Mace and Tom Rice will be removed by primary challenge.

New York Times – Election Results Here

Politico – Election Results Here

CNN – Election Results Here

Jun 15 2022

Biden Heading to Israel and Saudi Arabia July 13th through 16th, Will Meet With Gulf Cooperation Council During Trip


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 14, 2022 | Sundance

The people who control Joe Biden held a background call today announcing details of the upcoming trip by Joe Biden to the middle-east.   The trip will start in Israel where Biden will meet Israeli leaders and Palestinian Authority leader Abbas.

White House – […] In meetings with Israeli leaders, the President will reaffirm the ironclad U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and new areas of deepening cooperation in technology, climate, commerce, trade, and other sectors.

[…] The President will also visit the West Bank to meet with President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders.  The President, of course, has known Abbas for decades, and he looks forward to reaffirming his lifelong commitment to a two-state solution and to discuss the ways in which we might rekindle a new political horizon that can ensure equal measures of freedom, security, prosperity, and dignity to Israelis and Palestinians alike. 

[…] Following the visits to Israel and the West Bank, the President will fly directly from Israel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where he will participate in a summit of the Gulf Cooperation — GCC+3 — the GCC+3 — so the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar, plus Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt. The President will also hold bilateral meetings with the Saudi hosts and other counterparts. 

We are grateful that Saudi Arabia, which holds the rotating presidency of the GCC in 2022, will host this important summit bringing together nine heads of state from across the region to meet the President at the invitation of King Salman. 

[…] From the earliest days of our administration, we made clear that U.S. policy demanded recalibration in relations with this important country but not a rupture.  And that is because we have important interests interwoven with Saudi Arabia, and engagement is essential to protecting and advancing those interests on behalf of the American people. 

Saudi Arabia has been a strategic partner of the United States for nearly 80 years, and the President considers Riyadh an important partner on a host of regional and global priorities that we are working on.   (read more)

Jun 15 2022

Joe Biden is Yelling at Everyone Again


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 14, 2022

June 14, 2022 | Sundance | 261 Comments

Earlier today, angry Joe was channeling his inner thug as he harkened back to the good old days when labor unions were cracking skulls on behalf of the communists and socialists.  Giving the pretense of connection to the working class is a performance technique Biden has used throughout his career, but it holds absolutely no basis in reality.

Appearing at the AFL-CIO convention today, Biden began yelling at the brotherhood.  In his mind anger, violence and conflict is what he believes organized labor is all about, so his performance is designed to convey that connection.  It’s more than a little weird, it’s creepy. WATCH:

.

Jun 15 2022

Production Prices Continue Exceeding Current Consumer Prices, Meaning Higher Prices Still Coming


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 14, 2022 | Sundance 

The “Producer Price Index” (PPI) is essentially the tracking of wholesale prices at three stages: Origination (commodity), Intermediate (processing), and then Final (to wholesale). Today, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) released the May 2022 price data [Available Here] showing another 10.8% increase year-over-year in Final Demand products at the wholesale level.

The inflation within the total goods supply chain continues to accumulate at a more significant rate than the finished goods on the store shelves.  This means replacement goods will continue arriving with higher prices than current.   Final demand goods in May were 1.4% higher than April (16.8% annualized).  And the May year-over-year prices show a 10.8% increase [See Table A].  However, there’s more trouble ahead:

More troubling than the final demand price increases (wholesale finished goods), are the price increases in the intermediate goods and unprocessed raw materials.

Intermediate processed goods increased 2.3% in May (27.6% annualized).  The intermediate unprocessed goods, raw materials, jumped even higher in price at 6.3% for May (that’s a whopping 75.6% annualized increase).   It would appear the raw materials coming into the goods sector are coming in with even higher built-in energy costs than most people anticipated.

Once those intermediate products reach the final demand stage (wholesale), the cumulative price increase will mean even higher consumer prices.

(VIA ABC) – WASHINGTON — U.S. producer prices surged 10.8% in May from a year earlier, underscoring the ongoing threat to the economy from inflation that shows no sign of slowing.

Tuesday’s report from the Labor Department showed that the producer price index — which measures inflation before it reaches consumers — rose at slightly slower pace last month than in April, when it jumped 10.9% from a year earlier, and is down from an 11.5% yearly gain in March.

On a monthly basis, producer prices climbed 0.8% in May from April, above the previous month, when they increased 0.4%.

Energy prices, led by gas, rose 5% just in May from April. Another big driver of the price gains last month was a sharp 2.9% increase in the cost of truck freight hauling, a sign that supply chain problems still aren’t fully resolved. Food costs were unchanged.

The figures indicate that rising prices will continue to erode Americans’ paychecks and wreak havoc on household budgets in the coming months. Inflation has created major political headaches for President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats and has forced the Federal Reserve into a series of rapid interest rate hikes intended to slow the economy and cool price increases. (read more)