Tag Archives: Bio-terrorism

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

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

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 14 2022

Trudeau Contracts COVID Again – Thanks Vaccines


Armstrong Economics Blog/Politics Re-Posted Jun 14, 2022 by Martin Armstrong

Justin Trudeau contracted COVID for the second time this year. He is using his new diagnosis as a marketing campaign for Canadians to become human pushpin cushions. So he allegedly took numerous shots and boosters and still contracted the rarely deadly virus.

According to the Oxford dictionary, delusion is “characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.” The prime minister is now eligible for his own epigenetics program whenever Schwab decides to discard him.

I should also mention that Trudeau met with high-risk 79-year-old President Joe Biden on Thursday. He met with 82-year-old Nancy Pelosi on Friday, and they were photographed together without their favorite publicity accessory (masks). Neither has plans to isolate after coming into contact with the prime minister. Yet another example of politicians clearly knowing that the rules they impose are complete nonsense.

Jun 14 2022

Biden Senior Climate and Energy Policy Advisor Demands Social Media Companies Immediately Block Content Identifying Biden Policy as Source of Energy Inflation


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 13, 2022 

There is one big problem for the people inside the Biden administration executing the Green New Deal energy policy, the massive increases in energy cost including gasoline.

You see, everything is an academic estimate until the actual Green New Deal is transferred from theoretical policy into a set of actions that creates a major disruption in the economy.  As things in society start to collapse; and as people begin to really feel the inflationary consequences of the Biden energy policy in action; suddenly all of those ‘talking points’ about shutting down the fossil fuel industry take on a new meaning.   People didn’t realize the Green New Deal was going to mean $10/doz eggs, $15/gal milk, $20 happy meals at McDonalds, or $150/tank of gasoline…. Now they are paying attention.

For former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, the current senior climate and energy policy advisor within the White House, all of these ‘in your face‘ surfacing Green New Deal consequences have become problematic for the Biden administration.  Her proposed solution, however, is rather remarkable.

In this interview discussing the skyrocketing inflation and consequences created by the Green New Deal policies, Gina McCarthy urgently begs all of the social media companies to start removing the content from American people who are giving real world examples of the pain and economic hardship they are feeling.  McCarthy says that if social media do not start to help Joe Biden hide the pain, the climate change agenda might be at risk.  WATCH [11:00 prompted]:

.

Jun 13 2022

China ‘wants quick resolution’ to Ukraine conflict


By Reuters  Published originally on Rumble on June 11, 2022 

Singapore’s defense minister Ng Eng Hen, speaking on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday (June 11), told media that China wants a quick and peaceful resolution to Russia’s ongoing military conflict in Ukraine.

Jun 13 2022

Russia Gains More Ground in Donbas Region as Desperate Zelenskyy Arranges Emergency Meeting with France, Germany, Italy


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 12, 2022 | Sundance 

The constant and strategic pressure by Russian military in eastern Ukraine is slowly and methodically taking more ground each day.  Russian troops have now encircled and captured the city of Severodonetsk, which will join Lysychansk under full Russian control within days, according to the Washington Post.

Ukraine forces are running out of supplies as the U.S. State Dept. tries to organize the battle formations on behalf of U.S. interests in the country.  The Russian advances are slow, methodical and very deliberate.  The Ukraine military is losing ground and Zelenskyy is calling for more western help urgently.

LVIV, Ukraine—The leaders of France, Germany and Italy plan to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv this week, officials said, as reports showed Russia making gains in the country’s east and Ukrainian officials urgently sought arms from Western nations to hold Russian forces at bay.

French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi were planning to visit the Ukrainian capital on Thursday, said two European officials, who cautioned that plans could yet change. The trip would be the first to Ukraine since the beginning of the war for the three Western leaders.

News of the planned meeting came as Ukrainian officials said Russia had made fresh gains in its efforts to encircle and capture the city of Severodonetsk, which would bring Moscow significantly closer to its goal of controlling the Donbas area in the country’s east, its foremost target recently in the war.

Serhiy Haidai, the Ukrainian governor of the Luhansk region, which includes Severodonetsk, said on Sunday that Russians had destroyed a second bridge connecting Severodonetsk to Lysychansk, a Ukrainian stronghold just across the Siverskyi Donets river. Russian forces also shelled a chemical plant in the city’s industrial section, where civilians had taken shelter in bunkers, Mr. Haidai said.

The battlefield advances were the latest evidence that Russia is outgunning Ukrainian forces, using its superior artillery power to steadily take territory. Its gains have thrown added focus onto Ukraine’s pleas for more powerful and longer-range artillery and other weaponry from the West, as well as on Ukraine’s lack of capacity to manufacture ammunition for the Soviet-era heavy weapons in its arsenal. (read more)

.

Jun 12 2022

Americans Respond to Biden Saying U.S. Economy is Great


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 11, 2022 | Sundance 

An independent journalist named Savanah Hernandez took to the streets in Dallas, Texas, to ask ordinary people what they think about Joe Biden’s economy and his continued claims that everything is ok.  She shares her findings in a short video segment. {Direct Rumble Link}

“Biden keeps touting America’s “strongest, fastest, economic recovery” & that “Americans feel more financially comfortable”. So, I went out on the streets of Dallas to ask real Americans if this was true”…  WATCH:

.

In the background of these interviews, it is worth emphasizing that no other political candidate -from either side of the aisle- has the ability to reach such a broad segment of the U.S. population as Donald J Trump.  The Trump coalition is the largest and most diverse assembly of the American electorate that cuts through all categorized special interest groups.  It has been this way from the outset.

The broad support for the economic nationalist, America-First, commonsense agenda and platform created by Donald Trump, is the exact reason why DC democrats and republicans need to try and take him out of the arena.  Trump represents the majority sentiment, and the basic framework of his policy positions appeal to every spectrum of the American working class.

With Donald Trump in the picture the democrats are left with a very small, fragmented political support system consisting primarily of uppity white liberals, left-wing racists and toxic democrat-Marxists.

Jun 12 2022

Western Economic Inflation is a Feature, Not a Flaw, Currently Hidden Behind the Purposefully Useful Sanctions Against Russia


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 11, 2022 | Sundance 

Joe Biden’s repeated use of the phrase “Putin’s price hikes” is intended to shift responsibility for inflation away from his own policy and assign blame to Russia. Biden is essentially pretending that Vladimir Putin has control over White House energy policy, in order to protect his administration from the American people realizing all of the economic pain they feel is being done purposefully.

Putin didn’t price hike anything. The cause of the current spike in global oil prices was created, in the largest part, by the western sanctions against Russia; not the action of Russia itself.

Factually, massive global inflation began in early 2021 as an outcome of Western government spending and monetary policy. The U.S. Federal Reserve, EU and western alliance central bankers created the issue and were always going to face inflation as an outcome of their agreed direction. As the inflation started to become a serious political problem for them, the Ukraine conflict became the excuse, the blanket to hide the real origin of the problem.

Almost every western government leader now deflects responsibility for their inflation by pointing fingers at Vladimir Putin, this is not coincidental.  Just like their agreement to follow each other into the unsustainable spending spiral via “Build Back Better,” the same Western alliance -united members of the World Economic Forum- must now collectively deflect attention away from the consequences of their catastrophic agenda.

The global inflation crisis is, in essence, a direct and immediate outcome from the designs of the ‘The Great Reset.’  It is within this reset where the global cleaving is underway.

This is not some grand conspiracy or ‘out there‘ deep geopolitical theory.  The current fracturing of the global economic system is simply a predictable outcome from the western created events, designed in collaboration with the multinational institutions at Davos, that pushed specific countries to a natural conclusion.

From the outset of the Russian military operation into Ukraine, it was obvious the western alliance was intent on an almost ‘all or nothing‘ confrontation with Russia. The only limitation on the western alliance was a nuclear showdown through direct military action against Russia.

We can debate the individual motives of the NATO leaders who aligned with the sanctions against Russia, and whether they knew they were participating in a series of events that would only follow one direction, but the economic outcome was never in doubt.   Inflation that hits the citizens, fuel and gasoline prices that crush the working class, scarcity of goods and the potential for world-wide food issues are a consequence.  The people attached to the World Economic Forum are not stupid – ideological, yes, but not stupid. They knew this would happen.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a global financial mechanism located in Washington DC.  According to the U.S. Treasury Department, “The IMF is an organization of 189 member countries that works to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth.”  Put in succinct terms, the IMF is the financial control mechanism for western government.

…”the war may fundamentally alter the global economic and geopolitical order should energy trade shift, supply chains reconfigure, payment networks fragment, and countries rethink reserve currency holdings.”  (LINK)

When the IMF said the Ukraine conflict “may” trigger a new world order of global economic and financial systems, we should pay attention, because behind those statements is a reality that no one is openly discussing, yet.

Think of it this way… If Russia was to just simply withdraw from Ukraine, do you think the western financial sanctions and multinational corporations would just reverse themselves?   Of course not.  What was never mentioned in the sanction package, pushed by NATO and western alliance, was the no retreat Rubicon they created.  Removing Russia from the SWIFT financial exchange was/is irreversible; so too are the global banking sanctions triggered by political will.

Klaus Schwab and the WEF/Davos crowd will look happily at a western financial system valued on the currency of a collaboration of nations similar in value to how the Euro was established.

The central bankers in the EU, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO will all work on this new fragmented financial system. Perhaps the underlying currency will be digital, which aligns with the need for a western styled digital identity.

This is a direct outcome of the DC political system, NATO, western government and the multinational corporations all aligning to take advantage of the crisis that Ukraine presents.

The new financial mechanisms will likely line up with the Build Back Better program of clean energy and carbon trading.  All of the systems merge together into one unified western valued global financial system.

It’s stunning how no one in Washington DC is seemingly against this outcome.  It’s almost as if they realize, in the biggest of big pictures, the scale of the U.S. debt and deficit is so large that a massive reset is needed.  [Insert Captain Obvious Here]

Regardless of the Ukraine outcome, Putin, Xi, Obama and Klaus Schwab have already won.   The only real losers are American citizens, many of whom were duped into putting Ukraine flags in their social media avatars without thinking about the longer-term consequences.

In the United States, the people behind Biden and the extreme leftists are rapidly advancing their ideological quest toward the “Green New Deal.”

Coal, oil, and gas exploration/development have been slowed, stymied and halted as the administration chases clean renewable energy goals.

However, the current problem is there’s no intermediate system of energy production to support their push.  This is driving energy costs through the roof, and that problem is magnifying inflation created by prior spending.

During their collective pandemic response, western governments all followed the blueprint laid out by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which was, in essence, to shut down human activities, lock down economies and then spend massively to fill the void.  Almost all western leaders followed this exact advice and spent tens-of-trillions in direct subsidies to people and businesses during their lockdowns and COVID mitigation efforts.

At the end of this interventionist rainbow, the collective was instructed to “build back better,” where the economies they destroyed would be rebuilt through the priority prism of ‘climate change.’  However, just like the absence of any U.S. energy transition, the WEF program also did not have a mechanism to bridge the change from ‘dirty’ to ‘clean’ energy.

All of the western government spending during their COVID plan has created two big issues (crisis):

♦ First, massive inflation in every nation who followed the government spending approach. Not coincidentally, the national rate of inflation in every nation directly correlates to the scale of their spending in relationship to their GDP.   Global inflation is raging amid the nations that locked down and then subsidized the missing economic activity with government spending.

♦ The second crisis is simple.  All of that unsustainable spending has created massive government debt, that has to be paid back.  The debt level within the western nations skyrocketed.

However, if you take the outlook that WEF instructions were based on forethought this inflation and debt was going to be a natural consequence, a crisis created by following the plan, then it’s also likely the way out of the debt was always going to be inflation.

How else could the World Economic Forum members possibly expect to pay for their: (a) current spend level, and (b) grand “build back better” agenda?

That global banking system and multinational financial outlook puts a very important context to how the west would look at the non-western financial trade mechanisms as a threat.

Additionally, if this financial and banking issue is the true motive of western government, then suddenly a lot of our internal conservative political pro-Ukraine anti-Putin commentary starts to make sense.

People have wondered why folks like Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro and other conservative voices have been pounding the table demanding U.S. military involvement and more punitive actions against Vladimir Putin.  In the U.S., people have wondered why suddenly a major section of the Republican establishment have aligned with the position of the WEF, UN, NATO, World Bank, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, etc.

If you accept the global banking system and international financial system is on the precipice of a great cleaving, then suddenly the severe position of those voices makes sense.  Follow the money.

The global economic problem (debt and inflation) was directly caused by the collective western government response to COVID.  However, now there’s another aspect that makes the debt and inflation seem small by comparison.  Changing the energy baseline of western economies away from oil and gas has moved from esoteric theory into actual practice.

Within the great reset, people are collateral damage…..

….And that’s why they need everyone to blame Vladimir Putin.