The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE COVID BOOSTER DISASTER

Episode Date: September 27, 2022

As public health messaging struggles to sell a new Omicron booster shot without human trials, the science and research community is now publishing weekly data and findings revealing major issues with the American Covid vaccination program.#RochelleWallensky #Fauci #CovidBoostersBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Last week, you covered how the new Amacron boosters were raced through the FDA's EUA process and now being put out into the public on basically the strength of a study of eight mice that was public. No human trials, no human data, essentially. Let's check in from that time till now and see how the public messaging is going. Take a listen to Dr. Fauci. When you have a updated vaccine that serves as a boost as it were, and it's directed against the dominant circulating strain that's in society, you have every reason to believe that that is going to be better than having a vaccine that isn't highly specific to the circulating strain.

It hasn't been proven in a clinical trial because we don't have time to do a clinical trial because we need to get the vaccine out now because we have such a situation throughout. the world and certainly in the United States. I mean, we talked about this last week. We talked about this really every week, but it's amazing this idea that, and what I want people to focus on, they keep talking about efficacy, right? They want you thinking about, we have every reason to believe that if we attack Omicron, the vaccine will be better at doing what it's doing than using the old one.

Well, the old one sucked against the virus that it was trying to stop, didn't do it. Everyone's gotten sick. two, three times. More and more studies showing you're going to get sick more often if you get the vaccine. But where's the safety, right? We skipped all the safety trials, which is what we've always been focused on the high wire. I don't care about efficacy. Is this thing safe? We have absolutely no idea. Now based on the fact that you skip the safety trials, calling an emergency use authorization, then as soon as you got that authorization, you erased your entire placebo group by saying, hey, it would be unethical to not have them get the vaccine. So you knew what you were doing.

You erased that group. And now we're just going to say, hey, we don't have time to do safety studies are the next ones, and we're going to run off of the science that was done in the first ones, which was none. No science. And this thing is out of control, folks. This is what New York Times, Washington Post, I hope you realize this is what I've been arguing with about. When you're attacking me, when you're interviewing me, I said, do you really want to live in a world where there's no safety studies going on? And here we are. Thank you, all of you pundits and news anchors out there that push this upon us. We now have pharma running completely out of control with the government doing their bidding, no safety trials.

doesn't matter and everyone's just going to get lined up and more, more mandates on the way. It's absolute insanity. So, all right. Continue. And, okay, so if you remember, in August of last year, we had Marion Gruber. She's the now former FDA's director of the FDA's Office of Vaccine Research and Review. 32-year veterans stepped down because the FDA and the Biden administration were pushing through boosters, the first of the boosters, without proper data.

And at that time, you saw the media, actually, it was a different spin for the media because they actually turned to criticize the vaccine program. Something we've really never seen before from American media. This was what the headlines looked like back then. It says here, scientists blast US push for COVID vaccine booster shots as premature. Say data isn't compelling. And then we go a couple months later, November, experts criticize CDC's language on COVID vaccine boosters. They're trying to say, well, it's safe and effective and the studies show and experts are saying, what studies? What are you talking about?

And in September, here's another one. Biden faces booster plan blowback at home and abroad. Now, just this week, the headlines are looking the same from this Amacron booster. U.S. criticized for rolling out COVID boosters without human trials. We're kind of becoming a laughing stock of the world here. Financial Times, I think for the work we're doing. I feel like this could have all been missed, but now financial, these are, this is mainstream folks. You know, this has gotten so bad. Even people that were promoting this thing are saying, whoa, hold on a second.

I didn't see this coming. this is ridiculous. Right. And so they're given, I mean, we're basically looking at eight mice, basic, basic data. That's not really fully transparent to the United States. So Fauci admitted it. Let's take a look at what Rochelle Wenski, CDC director, is saying, how is she going to message this train wreck? Take a listen. Dr. Paul Lothad, an infectious disease and vaccine expert at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. He's also a member of the FDA Advisory Committee has been critical of this updated booster. he says that a healthy young person really is unlikely to even benefit from a booster dose. It should be targeted more specifically to those who really are most likely to benefit.

And I wonder if you agree with that assessment and whether just even saying that adds to what's been, as you know, an ongoing criticism of CDC messaging that COVID vaccines, COVID itself, the messaging has been confusing. So first, deep respect to Dr. Offutt. Here's what I will say about our updated vaccine. We are simplifying our message. The message is you need to get your fall booster vaccine. So go ahead and get it.

If you're over the age of 12, if you've received your primary series, if you're more than two months out of your last shot, you can get an updated vaccine. And so we've intentionally simplified the message, so it's very, very clear. Amazing when you find yourself in a moment where the highway is now aligned with Paul Offutt, who is saying, are you people out of your bloody, minds. There is no science behind this. You know, mad props, she says, out to Paul Lopit, but we're going ahead with a homogenized one-size-fits-all for everyone in the country.

A total non-answer. It's going to be interesting to see how long Wollinsky lasts at the CDC with this type of messaging. But let's take a look at what this simple-minded messaging that she talks about looks like. So you can look no further than the FDA's own webpage. They've become vaccine promoter now. Don't be shocked, they say. You can now recharge your immunity hashtag with an updated COVID-19 booster. Now you're basically a battery. Your health is simply a battery to be charged by a pharmaceutical product. You're a walking Tesla. You're a Tesla automobile. No discussion about and forget about it. God forbid the electricity doesn't work. You know, no Tesla in this case, sorry, you know, that that juice didn't work. You know, no recharging your immunity in California,

apparently. So let's keep it. Let's keep looking at the FDA's Twitter account. Here's another one. It's time to install that update. Update your antibodies hashtag with a new COVID-19 booster. So now your antibodies and your health is basically like an iPhone app to install. But it's really AI, isn't it? I mean, when you think about that, they're all, I mean, I'm not even sure we thought about this. When you put your last, you know, the last conversation we just had about AI into this, they're literally getting to think of ourselves as electronic robots, right? Charge ourselves up, reboot, you know, rehab, you know, all these things, you know, upgrade your software.

I mean, it really, it's all a part of the same thinking. You've got to see how they're putting these things together. Yeah, the messaging is merging lanes right now. It's very, very clear. And this is why, again, we are reporting on this infrastructure that has kind of been pushed through with the pandemic, with the vaccine. But it leads, there's such a tail, long tail on this infrastructure that's being pushed in while that door is open. And we have to pay attention to this. So while the CDC, the FDA are really just accepting non-studies on mice, there are actual people out there doing real studies, doing real reanalypt.

of the data. Peter Doshi and his colleagues have done an amazing study that just came out this past week. And this is a secondary analysis of the phase three clinical trials from Pfizer-Moderna. And it's titled serious adverse events of special interests following MRNA vaccination and randomized trials. And he says, this is what they looked at. He says in the Pfizer trial, 52 adverse events of serious interest, that's AESI, 27.7 per 10,000 were reported in the vaccine group. and 33, 17.6 per 10,000 in the placebo group. This difference corresponds to a 57% increase of adverse events of serious interest. You didn't hear that in the news.

Moderna, same thing. In the Moderna trial, he writes, 87 serious adverse events of special interests, 57.3 per 10,000 were reported in the vaccine group in 64, 42.2 per 10,000 in the placebo group. This difference corresponds to a 36% increase risk of serious adverse events of special interests. Now, here is the key finding. He writes this. In the Moderna trial, the excess risk of serious adverse events of serious interest, 15.1 per 10,000 participants, surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group. Goes on to say the same thing about Pfizer in the Pfizer trial.

That excess risk of the serious adverse events, 10.1 per 10,000, surpassed the risk reduction of COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group. Basically, you know, more people were getting harmed by the vaccine than those that were being kept out of the hospital. So when we talk about a risk-reward ratio, which is how we've got to decide whether we move forward with a product, at least until this moment in time, the history of medicine is you failed the test. You failed the placebo test. You didn't beat the placebo. Now your product is actually more dangerous than not getting it at all. Exactly.

And remember, transmission's out the window. they're not even trying to defend that hill anymore. Infection out the window. So hospitalizations, what we've been dangled in front of our face, at least it keeps you out of the hospital, but he's saying, no, it does not. It does not. And so it concluded in this study, this,

full transparency of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data is needed to properly evaluate these questions. Unfortunately, well over a year after widespread use of COVID-19 vaccines, participant-level data remains inaccessible. Remember, we were promised transparency before these things rolled out. And we're seeing here basically a year later, two years later, with respected researchers saying, we still don't have access to the individual participant trial data to reanalyze this.

So what he's saying is we need that data to do a harm benefit analysis. And that is exactly what has. And let's hand that data to all the greatest scientists around the world, not those that sold us this product, not those that are covering their butts. Every single scientist that wants to look at it, let's go ahead and have the scientific method take place worldwide and get to the bottom of what this data actually tells us. Not let Pfizer do it anymore on by themselves or Moderna. Let's take it outside to private groups. It's so right. And yes and call right now as we speak colleges out there, Harvard, UC Davis, countless others are threatening to disenroll students if they don't get the third

shot. They don't get a booster on top of their primary series. So now we have we have scientists, uh, Marty McCari, Johns Hopkins, uh, Vinnie Prasad, Tracy Hogue, they have come out with a study and they have done a harm, a risk benefit analysis on the booster shot in college kids. This is the study here. This is an incredible study. COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults, a risk benefit assessment in five ethical arguments against mandates at universities. And they say this, using CDC and sponsor reported adverse event data. Sponsor reported means Moderna and Pfizer's own data. We find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm per COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in previously

uninfected young adults we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events including 1.7 to 3.0 booster associated myocarditis cases in males in 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade 3 or higher retrogenicity which interferes with daily activities remember grade 3 retrogenicity is is basically prevent daily routines, activities, grade four puts you in the hospital or the ER. So they're looking at those specifically in these college students in this estimate. And they say this, kind of a similar conclusion of what Doshi found in his reanalysis. They say based on public data provided by the CDC, we estimate that approximately 22,000 to 30,000 previously uninfected young adults age 18 to 29 years must be boosted with an

M RNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalization. Given the fact that this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by prior infection, natural immunity, nor a risk adjustment for comorbidity status, this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit. And they basically go on to say, this is ethically unjustifiable, given the fact that these kids really can't, there's no compensation program that's properly in place, is broken. they can't sue for any serious harms from these vaccines. This is a pretty interesting study because they use the data, but they also go into ethics.

And the group is now still in harm's way of mandates that are happening, maybe not publicly but privately in these universities and institutions. So many people worried about where their kids are going to college and feel helpless under these circumstances. So it's great that the science is being done to reveal this. And of course, you know, we will have our legal team, I'm sure, bringing cases against these universities using this science as just part of the argument. And if the audience is starting to catch on here, there is a tempo happening.

The scientific community is finding some really inconvenient truths, and they're being emboldened to actually talk about those now. So here's one more study we're going to cover before we leave. This is the headline, the shock headline, COVID vaccine destroys natural immunity. New England Journal of Medicine study shows. And this is a study here, effects of vaccination and previous infection on Amacron infections in children. Now, these are children five to 11 years old.

And we're going to tell this story by the actual graphs and charts from the study itself. So we're going to look at this first graph here. This was looking at Pfizer's vaccine only in 5 to 11 year olds. And you can see here the effectiveness of the BNT 162B2, that's Pfizer's vaccine against infection according to date of first dose. So each one of those lines is basically just according to when these kids receive their first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. And you can see here, they get their first dose.

first dose, November, January, December, and it spikes up there, and then it starts dropping down really fast, like a ski slope. Everyone, I'm shocked when I see, you know, these lines going below the dotted line, and that's a lot of what we reported. Some were not in the timeline yet to see it, but in all of these cases, these charts mean that eventually, you know, if you got it in November, by April, you are now at an increased risk of catching the illness after vaccination, right? That's what that means. Once it's below that zero line, we are moving into a place of increased infection or negative efficacy. Something we've shown a lot, but it's one of the best charts I've seen sort of laying that out and showing us what's happening here. Yeah, very perceptive. That is the takeaway from that chart. So now we go to another chart from the same study.

And this is the effectiveness of previous infection. So natural immunity against reinfection among unvaccinated children. So the kids never had a vaccine touch them. And you can see, It's not dropping that fast. You can see the ski slope there is not really ski slope. It's kind of just like a moderate hill. It's going down. And you're not going to negative effectiveness. You're not going anywhere close to zero.

You're stopping at about high 40s at the lowest in the 50s, mid-50s. But now we get to the really interesting data. So you give kids with natural immunity a shot and their defense against. So they've already been infected. Just to be clear, they've already been infected. They now have natural immunity, which we just saw on that chart, which is way better than what the vaccine was creating. That's diving down to negative pretty quick within six months.

This is holding pretty strong. So we take that natural immune group and we give them a vaccine, correct? Right, absolutely, correct. And this is the guidance that health authorities have said if you have been infected, you still should get the vaccine for extra protection. So this is a study, five to 11-year-olds. You give the kids the shot that have already had natural immunity, have already had the infection, and you can see this.

Their defense against reinfection plummets. Effectiveness, a previous infection against reinfection among vaccinated children is the title of this chart. And you can see here, you're just going straight down to zero. The Omicron variant is in the red. That starts plummeting down. But you notice they cut it off in May. The earlier chart, when it went through May, showed negative efficacy. So it's interesting they cut it off there.

But that's what it's showing here. And, you know, we've reported on mechanisms that could potentially drive, drive the immune system of people to be damaged to hyper focus on one variant and leave out other variants, not being able to see the other variants. So this goes along with the theoretical data of previous studies that have shown that these vaccines may actually harm your immunity and make it less able to target the new variants that come. along. And it's really been one of the biggest conversations you and I and our team has been having behind closed doors, which is we see that the natural immunity just so far outperforms the vaccinated immunity. It's off the charts. The vaccinated are now getting sick two, three times with COVID. But the question has always been, does that natural immunity hold strong if they're vaccinated again? Does that natural immunity? Is that what persists? Or do you

erase it and then go to the less effective vaccinal immunity, and now it's clear it's erasing your natural immunity, and now you're back on that freight train into negative efficacy. Wow. I mean, how many, how many, I mean, so on the one side, they decided to give out the vaccine on a study of eight mice, the world's resting on that. How many people were in this study? How big was this study that was done? They looked at over 800,000 kids, and then they kind of whittled that down to who was vaccinated, who was not vaccinated, who took one dose, who took what vaccine. Wow. And that, so that's a very large. But hundreds of thousands versus, humans versus eight mice,

this was what our government decided to push forward with our vaccine program here in the states. It's out. It's just, it's a disgrace. And you have to wonder, have this is a study that's obviously come out to the public. What have government's been briefed on in the background? Because these are the headlines we're seeing here out of the UK just recently. Children turning five won't be eligible for the jab unless they're at high risk. And so this is in alignment with what the Scandinavian countries have already done.

UK is actually late to the party here. Take a look at this vaccine map. This is what basically the recommendation. So in the red, you're seeing Sweden, Denmark, UK, no longer offering vaccination to five to 11-year-olds that are non-high risk. That means the general population. And in an orange, we have Norway and Finland not recommending the vaccine. So basically their health authorities are saying you can get them if you want. but we aren't putting our recommendation behind it.

And just a side note, Denmark just announced that they're not offering the boosters to under 50s unless you're at high risk. So that's a big move from Denmark that just happened as well. You feel like Denmark might be watching the high wire, you know, and getting some of their information. You know, and I want to put out there that, you know, you see these nations. You think like, where's England? Like, where are those superpowers in this? You know, here in the United States of America, we only have one leader that I think should be put on that chart. And that's Ronda, Santa, Florida, you know, because we had.

you know, Surgeon General of Florida, Joseph Lattapo on our show, saying we have gone against the vaccine for children. We don't believe, you know, we're showing that it's more dangerous. So I think, you know, there's a little piece of America that's at least thinking clearly on this subject too.