New Study & Pfizer Documents prove Covid-19 Vaccination is going to cause mass Depopulation through Infertility & Death

A mountain of evidence found in the confidential Pfizer documents that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has been forced to publish by court order proves that Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to depopulation through its effect on fertility in women, its contribution to pregnancy loss, and the harm it causes to newborn babies, sadly leading to premature death.

But now a new study, conducted by respected doctors and scientists in Israel, reveals Covid-19 vaccination is also going to lead to depopulation due to the adverse effect it has on the fertility of men because the respected doctors and scientists have discovered that Covid-19 vaccination decimates sperm count.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

Let’s start with the evidence contained in the new study.

A recent Israeli study in the journal Andrology found that there was a reduction in sperm count equating to an average of 22% among samples from donors three months after participants had received a second dose of the experimental Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 injection.

The following table taken from the study displays the results –

Source

The above chart shows that “total motile count” – the number of sperm in the ejaculated semen – plunged 22%, three to five months after the second shot (T2) and barely recovered during the final count (T3) when it was still 19 per cent below the pre-shot level.

Unfortunately, no observations were carried out after this period so we have no idea if things improve or worsen.

Dr. Ranjith Ramasamy, director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at the University of Miami’s health system, said the study adds extremely “interesting” information to the field of ongoing research into the effects of this experimental injection.

Dr Ramasamy said it “would be among the first to demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines could lead to a decrease in sperm parameters”.

With official figures estimating over 500 million men may have been given an mRNA Covid-19 injection, it’s quite easy to see how this study alone proves Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to mass depopulation through infertility.

But this isn’t going to be the only contributing factor in regard to Covid-19 vaccination.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempted to delay the release of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine safety data for 75 years despite approving the injection after only 108 days of safety review on December 11th, 2020.

But in early January 2022, Federal Judge Mark Pittman ordered them to release 55,000 pages per month. They released 12,000 pages by the end of January.

Since then, PHMPT has posted all of the documents on its website. The latest drop happened on 1st June 2022.

One of the studies, found in the long list of confidential Pfizer documents reveals that the contents of the Pfizer vaccine accumulate in the ovaries.

The study was carried out on Wistar Han rats, 21 of which were female and 21 of which were male.

Each rat received a single intramuscular dose of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection and then the content and concentration of total radioactivity in blood, plasma and tissues were determined at pre-defined points following administration.

In other words, the scientists conducting the study measured how much of the Covid-19 injection has spread to other parts of the body such as the skin, liver, spleen, heart etc.

But one of the most concerning findings from the study is the fact that the Pfizer injection accumulates in the ovaries over time.

An ‘ovary’ is one of a pair of female glands in which the eggs form and the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone are made.

Source

In the first 15 minutes following injection of the Pfizer jab, researchers found that the total lipid concentration in the ovaries measured 0.104ml. This then increased to 1.34ml after 1 hour, 2.34ml after 4 hours, and then 12.3ml after 48 hours.

The scientists, however, did not conduct any further research on the accumulation after a period of 48 hours, so we simply don’t know whether that concerning accumulation continued.

We are however witnessing the consequences of this action. Official UK figures published by Public Health Scotland, which can be found here, show that the number of women suffering ovarian cancer in 2021 was significantly higher than in 2020 and the 2017-2019 average.

Ovarian Cancer – Source

The above chart shows up to June 2021, but the charts found on Public Health Scotland’s dashboard now show figures all the way up to December 2021 and unfortunately reveal that the gap has widened even further with the number of women suffering Ovarian cancer increasing significantly.

Click to enlarge

The same Public Health Scotland ‘Covid-19 Wider Impacts’ dashboard also reveals that the rate of neonatal deaths increased to 4.6 per 1000 live births in March 2022, a 119% increase on the expected rate of deaths. This means the neonatal mortality rate breached an upper warning threshold known as the ‘control limit’ for the second time in the last 7 months.

The last time it breached was in September 2021, when neonatal deaths per 1000 live births climbed to 5.1. Although the rate fluctuates month to month, the figure for both September 2021 and March 2022 is on a par with levels that were last typically seen in the late 1980s.

Click to enlarge
Source

Public Health Scotland (PHS) did not formally announce they had launched an investigation, but this is what they are supposed to do when the upper warning threshold is reached, and they did so back in 2021.

At the time, PHS said the fact that the upper control limit has been exceeded “indicates there is a higher likelihood that there are factors beyond random variation that may have contributed to the number of deaths that occurred”.

Further evidence found in the confidential Pfizer documents suggests that factor is most likely Covid-19 vaccination.

The document in question is ‘reissue_5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf’. Page 12 contains data on the use of the Pfizer Covid-19 injection in pregnancy and lactation.

Fifty-eight per cent of the mothers who reported suffering adverse reactions suffered a serious adverse event ranging from uterine contraction to foetal death.

And a total of 4 serious foetus/baby cases were reported due to exposure to the Pfizer injection.

Here are the known outcomes of the pregnancies –

There were 34 outcomes altogether at the time of the report, but 5 of them were still pending. Pfizer noted that only 1 of the 29 known outcomes were normal, whilst 28 of the 29 outcomes resulted in the loss/death of the baby. This equates to 97% of all known outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child.

When we include the 5 cases where the outcome was still pending it equates to 82% of all outcomes of Covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy resulting in the loss of the child. This equates to an average of around 90% between the 82% and 97% figures.

As of June/July 2022, the official documented guidance on administering the Covid-19 injection during pregnancy is as follows –

This leads to several questions requiring urgent answers when we consider since early 2021 pregnant women have been told Covid-19 vaccination is perfectly safe.

The limited animal study talked about in the official guidance actually uncovered the risk of significant harm to the developing foetus, but medicine regulators in the USA, UK and Australia actively chose to remove this information from public documents.

The actual study can be viewed in full here and is titled Lack of effects on female fertility and prenatal and postnatal offspring development in rats with BNT162b2, a mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine.

The study was performed on 42 female Wistar Han rats. Twenty-one were given the Pfizer Covid-19 injection, and 21 were not.

Here are the results of the study –

The results of the number of foetuses observed to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the control group were 3/3 (2.1). But the results of the number of foetuses to have supernumerary lumbar ribs in the vaccinated group was 6/12 (8.3). Therefore on average, the rate of occurrence was 295% higher in the vaccinated group.

Supernumerary ribs also called accessory ribs are an uncommon variant of extra ribs arising most commonly from the cervical or lumbar vertebrae.

So what this study found is evidence of abnormal foetal formation and birth defects caused by the Pfizer Covid-19 injection.

But the abnormal findings of the study don’t end there. The ‘pre-implantation loss’ rate in the vaccinated group of rats was double that of the control group.

Pre-implantation loss refers to fertilised ova that fail to implant. Therefore, this study suggests that the Pfizer Covid-19 injection reduces the chances of a woman being able to get pregnant. So, therefore, increases the risk of infertility.

So with this being the case, how on earth have medicine regulators around the world managed to state in their official guidance that “Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy”? And how have they managed to state “It is unknown whether the Pfizer vaccine has an impact on fertility“?

The truth of the matter is that medicine regulators simply cannot be trusted. They are bought and paid for by the very pharmaceutical companies whose products they review for approval to be offered and administered to the general public.

Covid-19 vaccination is going to lead to mass depopulation, and it’s going to do this by reducing the fertility of men through lowered sperm counts, affecting the fertility of women by attacking the ovaries, causing women to suffer spontaneous abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, and increasing the number of newborn deaths.

And with 4.78 billion people allegedly fully vaccinated throughout the entire world, it looks like we’re much further down the road to mass depopulation than anyone could possibly imagine.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Immune Imprinting, Comirnaty and Omicron (part 2) More details emerge on why the mRNA vaccines are not preventing Omicron infection Robert W Malone MD, MS

Recently a series of high profile, “fully vaccinated” (four dose) pro-vaccine mandate politicians and bureaucrats have developed COVID-19 disease. In Part 1 of this two part series, a wide range of both primary data and mostly peer-reviewed academic publications relating to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant “breakthrough infections” were reviewed, multiple working hypotheses for what might be the cause of “negative effectiveness” of the genetic vaccines were described, and one of the hypotheses with the strongest supporting data (“Immune imprinting”) was discussed. This discussion was structured around the introductory section and references cited in a peer reviewed manuscript published in Science magazine, entitled:

Immune boosting by B.1.1.529 (Omicron) depends on previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure

Catherine J Reynolds, Corinna Pade, Joseph M Gibbons et al, Science, June 14 2022 doi: 10.1126/science.abq1841

This is not an easy paper, although not as challenging as the 17 June, 2022 Nature pre-print titled “BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection” which was briefly reviewed here. The Reynolds et al Science paper is well structured, with clearly labeled subsections throughout the overall results section, key findings of which will be briefly summarized below.

Results

B cell immunity after three vaccine doses

Health care workers (HCW) were identified with mild and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by ancestral Wuhan Hu-1, B.1.1.7 (Alpha VOC), B.1.617.2 (Delta VOC) and then B.1.1.529 (Omicron VOC) during successive waves of infection and after first, second and third mRNA (BioNTech BNT162b2) vaccine doses. By three vaccine doses antibody responses had plateaued, regardless of infection history. We found differences in immune imprinting indicating that those who were infected during the ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 wave showed a significantly reduced anti-RBD (receptor binding domain) titer against B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) compared to infection-naïve HCW.

Simplifying, if you were first infected with Wuhan Hu-1, then vaccinated, then infected with Omicron, your antibody levels against the important part of Spike (the receptor binding domain) were lower than those who had not been infected.

Memory B cell (MBC) frequency against ancestral Wuhan Hu-1, B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 (the extracellular part of Spike that includes the RBD) protein was boosted 2-3 weeks after the third vaccine dose compared to 20-21 weeks after the second vaccine dose. Irrespective of infection history, the MBC frequency against Wuhan Hu-1 and B.1.617.2 (Delta) S1 were similar, but significantly reduced against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 2-3 weeks after the third vaccine dose and at 20-21 weeks after the second dose. Differences between VOC (variant of concern) RBD and whole spike binding and nAb (neutralizing antibody) IC50 with live virus indicated that antibody targeting regions outside RBD/spike or conformational epitopes exposed only during infection may contribute to neutralization.

Memory B cells are what gives rise to future ability to develop antibodies. MBC frequency is an indirect indicator of long term protection. The numbers of MBC capable of producing antibodies reactive against Spike S1 subunit were increased by a third injection relative to two injections, regardless of whether or not the patient was previously infected, but in the case of Omicron, these levels dropped after either two or three doses of vaccine. These effects were independent of prior virus infection history. Which is more evidence of immunologic escape of Omicron from B-cell mediated (antibody) control.

T cell immunity after three vaccine doses

We next compared T cell responses in triple-vaccinated HCW 2-3 weeks after the third dose, who were either infection- naïve or had been infected during the Wuhan Hu-1, B.1.1.7 (Alpha) or B.1.617.2 (Delta) waves. … for S1 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) protein we found a significantly reduced magnitude of response. Overall, more than half (27/50; 54%) made no T cell response against S1 B.1.1.529 (Omicron) protein, irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection history, compared to 8% (4/50) that made no T cell response against ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 S1 protein.

This is problematic. Half failed to generate T cells to Omicron. T cells are major contributors to the protection, and generating both B and T cell responses is the whole reason to use an mRNA vaccine.

To investigate T cell recognition of VOC (variant of concern) sequence mutations, we used a peptide pool specifically designed to cover all of the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 and S2 spike mutations and a matched pool containing the Wuhan Hu-1 equivalent sequences. T cell responses against the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) peptide pool were reduced compared to the Wuhan Hu-1 pool, irrespective of previous infection history [fold-reduction in T cell response against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) peptide pool compared to equivalent ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 peptide pool was 2.7-fold for infection-naïve, 4.6-fold for previously Wuhan Hu-1 infected, 2.7-fold for previously B.1.1.7 (Alpha) infected and 3.8-fold for previously B.1617.2 (Delta) infected. In fact, 42% (21/50) of HCW make no T cell response at all against the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) VOC mutant pool. Overall, our findings in triple-vaccinated HCW with different previous SARS-CoV-2 infection histories indicated that T cell cross-recognition of B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 antigen and peptide pool was significantly reduced.

Not good. A large fraction of fully vaccinated (regardless of prior infection history) do not make good T cell responses. So now we have evidence suggesting both poor B and poor T responses to Omicron, or in other words Omicron has evolved to escape both B and T cell adaptive immunity (relatively speaking, compared to other variants).

But why and how?

B.1.1.529 (Omicron) spike mutations encompass gain and loss of T cell epitopes

Immunizing HLAII transgenic mice with either ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 or B.1.1.529 (Omicron) sequence specific peptide pools allowed us to investigate differential, sequence-specific T cell priming that occurs as a consequence of B.1.1.529 (Omicron) spike mutations. We showed that priming with one pool resulted in impaired responses to the other.

The G142D/del 143-5 mutation created a gain of function epitope, switching from a region not recognized by T cells, to one that induced a Th1/Th17 effector program. We have previously shown that the N501Y mutation converts a T cell effector-stimulating epitope to an inducer of immune regulation.

B cell immunity after B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infection

Next, we studied triple-vaccinated HCW 14-weeks after their third dose, who had suffered breakthrough infection during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave. Previously infection-naïve triple-vaccinated HCW made significantly increased cross-reactive antibody binding responses against all VOC and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) itself after infection during the B.1.1.5129 (Omicron) wave: S1 RBD, whole spike and nAb IC50. However, antibody binding and nAb IC50 were attenuated against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) itself with a 4.5-fold reduction in S1 RBD binding (p = 0.001) and 10.1-fold reduction in nAb IC50 (p = 0.002) against B.1.1.529 compared to ancestral Wuhan Hu-1. Thus, infection during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave produced potent cross-reactive antibody immunity against all VOC, but less so against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) itself. Importantly, triple-vaccinated, infection-naïve HCW that were not infected during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave made no nAb IC50 response against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) 14 weeks after the third vaccine dose indicating rapid waning of the nAb IC50.

Omicron infection boosted immunity to prior strains in triple vaccinated HCW, but not so much against itself. For the triple vaccinated HCW who had not been infected by prior viral strains including Omicron, the neutralizing antibodies against Omicron were rapidly lost after third vaccination.

HCW with a history of prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection that were also infected during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave showed no increase in cross-reactive S1 RBD or whole spike antibody binding or live virus nAb IC50 against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) or any other VOC, despite having made a higher N antibody response. Thus, B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infection can boost binding and nAb responses against itself and other VOC in triple-vaccinated previously uninfected infection naïve HCW, but not in the context of immune imprinting following prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection. Immune imprinting by prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection completely abrogated any enhanced nAb responses against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) and other VOC.

Basically, if the HCW were first infected by the original Wuhan strain (as I was), they do not make an increased neutralizing antibody response after Omicron infection (compared to those who are triple vaccinated but not previously infected by the original Wuhan strain). So, prior infection by Wuhan seems to block production of neutralizing antibody responses during/after Omicron infection. And that is pretty much proof of the immune imprinting effect.

In summary, B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infection resulted in enhanced, cross-reactive Ab responses against all VOC tested in the three-dose vaccinated infection-naïve HCW, but not those with previous Wuhan Hu-1 infection, and less so against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) itself.

So, we have immune imprinting with B cell/antibody responses, what about T cell responses?

T cell immunity after B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infection

We next explored T cell immunity following breakthrough infection during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave. Fourteen weeks after the third dose (9/10, 90%) of triple-vaccinated, previously infection-naïve HCW showed no cross-reactive T cell immunity against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 protein.

Post vaccination, rapid loss of any detectable T cell immunity against S1, which is the main antigen in the vaccines. Not good.

HCW infected during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave showed similar T cell responses against spike MEP, ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 S1 and B.1.617.2 (Delta) S1 proteins, but significantly reduced T cell responses against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 protein.

Although breakthrough infection in triple-vaccinees during the Omicron infection wave boosted cross-reactive T cell immune recognition against the spike MEP pool (p = 0.0117), ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 (p = 0.0039), B.1.617.2 (Delta) (p = 0.0003) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) , the T cell response against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 protein itself compared to spike MEP (p = 0.001), Wuhan Hu-1 (p = 0.001), and B.1.617.2 (Delta) (p = 0.001) was significantly reduced.

Fully vaccinated but post infection with Omicron, significantly reduced T cell responses against Omicron S1 protein, but still boosted responses to the preceding strains. This is basically a set up for either chronic Omicron infection or rapid Omicron re-infection.

Importantly, none (0/6) of HCW with a previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Wuhan Hu-1 wave responded to B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 protein (Fig. 5A). This suggests that, in this context, B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infection was unable to boost T cell immunity against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) itself; immune imprinting from prior Wuhan Hu-1 infection resulted in absence of a T cell response against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1 protein.

The findings show consistently that people initially infected by Wuhan Hu-1 in the first wave and then reinfected during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave do not boost T cell immunity against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) at the level of nAb and T cell recognition.

In these HCW, if you were infected with the original Wuhan strain, then vaccinated, then reinfected with Omicron you do not make good neutralizing antibody or T cell responses to Omicron. Very bad news. Yet more evidence for initial immune imprinting reinforced by repeated vaccination with the original Wuhan virus-derived spike mRNA vaccine causing an inability to respond to Omicron. Really sounds like these sorts of patients may become the breeding ground for the next wave of Omicron variants.

Prior infection differentially imprints Omicron T and B cell immunity

To investigate in more detail the impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on immune imprinting, we further explored responses in our longitudinal HCW cohort. We looked initially at the S1 RBD (ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 and Omicron VOC) antibody binding responses across the longitudinal cohort at key vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection timepoints, exploring how different exposure imprinted differential cross-reactive immunity and durability. This revealed that at 16-18 weeks after Wuhan Hu-1 infection or B.1.1.7 (Alpha) infection, unvaccinated HCW showed no detectable cross-reactive S1 RBD binding antibodies against B.1.1.529 (Omicron).

In other words, Omicron has evolved to completely evade any antibodies generated from natural infection by either the original Wuhan or the Alpha strains.

Hybrid immunity (the combination of prior infection and a single vaccine dose) significantly increased the S1 RBD binding antibodies against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) (p < 0.0001) compared to responses of infection-naïve HCW, which were undetectable after a single vaccine dose. This increase was significantly greater for prior Wuhan Hu-1 than B.1.1.7 (Alpha) infected HCW.

Good news. Prior infection with either original Wuhan or Alpha strains, followed by a single mRNA dose, resulted in detectable antibodies to Omicron, although this worked better if you were first infected with the original Wuhan rather than the Alpha strain.

However, 20-21 weeks after the second vaccine dose, differential B.1.1.529 (Omicron) RBD Ab waning was noted with almost all (19/21) of the HCW infected during the second B.1.1.7 (Alpha) wave no longer showing detectable cross-reactive antibody against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) RBD.

Oops. One dose of the mRNA vaccine after natural infection is good. Two doses not good.

This indicates a profound differential impact of immune imprinting on B.1.1.529 (Omicron) specific immune antibody waning between HCW infected by Wuhan Hu-1 and B.1.1.7 (Alpha) as this differential is not seen in Ab responses to ancestral WuhanHu-1 spike S1 RBD.

Fourteen weeks after the third vaccine dose previously infection-naïve HCW infected during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave showed increased S1 RBD B.1.1.529 (Omicron) binding responses, but prior Wuhan Hu-1 infected HCW did not, indicating that prior Wuhan Hu-1 infected individuals were immune imprinted to not boost antibody binding responses against B.1.1.529 (Omicron) despite having been infected by B.1.1.529 (Omicron) itself.

Three doses of mRNA vaccine in people never infected with virus shows antibody production against Omicron spike protein, but not if the HCW were previously infected with the original Wuhan strain first.

In fact, infection during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave imprinted a consistent relative hierarchy of cross-neutralization immunity against VOC across different individuals with potent cross-reactive nAb responses against B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta) and B.1.617.2 (Delta) (Fig. 6, D and E). Comparative analysis of nAb potency for cross-neutralization of VOC emphasized the impact of immune imprinting which effectively abrogates the nAb responses in those vaccinated HCW infected during the first wave and then reinfected during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave.

If the HCW were first infected by the Wuhan strain, then vaccinated, then reinfected with Omicron, the immune imprinting associated with being first infected and then vaccinated pretty much destroyed their ability to respond effectively to Omicron.

Yes, Virginia, forcing HCW who were previously infected with Wuhan strain to take three doses of the mRNA vaccine actually pretty much destroyed their ability to mount a potent immune response against Omicron.

Unresolved is whether those fully vaccinated people who land in the hospitals and/or die from Omicron were first infected with another strain prior to becoming fully vaccinated.

What do the authors conclude about all of this?

Discussion

Molecular characterization of the precise mechanism underpinning repertoire shaping from a combination of Wuhan Hu-1 or B.1.1.7 (Alpha) infection and triple-vaccination using ancestral Wuhan Hu-1 sequence, impacting immune responses to subsequent VOCs, will require detailed analysis of differential immune repertoires and their structural consequences. The impact of differential imprinting was seen just as profoundly in T cell recognition of B.1.1.529 (Omicron) S1, which was not recognized by T cells from any triple-vaccinated HCW who were initially infected during the Wuhan Hu-1 wave and then re-infected during the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) wave. Importantly, while B1.1.529 (Omicron) infection in triple-vaccinated previously uninfected individuals could indeed boost antibody, T cell and MBC responses against other VOC, responses to itself were reduced. This relatively poor immunogenicity against itself may help to explain why frequent B.1.1.529 (Omicron) reinfections with short time intervals between infections are proving a novel feature in this wave. It also concurs with observations that mRNA vaccination carrying the B.1.1.529 (Omicron) spike sequence (Omicron third-dose after ancestral sequence prime/boosting) offers no protective advantage.

In summary, these studies have shown that the high global prevalence of B.1.1.529 (Omicron) infections and reinfections likely reflects considerable subversion of immune recognition at both the B, T cell, antibody binding and nAb level, although with considerable differential modulation through immune imprinting. Some imprinted combinations, such as infection during the Wuhan Hu-1 and Omicron waves, confer particularly impaired responses.

And we continue to have the government advise that all of our children, most of whom have already been infected and have cleared the virus with very little problem, should get vaccinated?

These data may help explain the negative effectiveness being observed with “full” mRNA vaccination in those who have been infected by Omicron.

For example, please see the latest clinical data from Canada and Portugal.

Subscribe to Who is Robert Malone

By Robert W Malone MD  ·  Tens of thousands of paid subscribers

Medicine, science, bioethics, analytics, politics and life

Subscribe now

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Letter to the Editor: Chemtrails Over Scotland Cause Asthma and Chemtrails Occur Almost Daily Over Wales BY RHODA WILSON

A reader from Scotland writes to describe how, he believes, chemtrails have caused his asthma to return after 40 years of being asthma free.  He also describes the “tree die-off” he is witnessing.  “I have never before seen such a ‘tree die-off’ as I have this year,” he writes, “something is being sprayed into the atmosphere which is selectively pathogenic to growing things.”

Another reader writes to say he is pleased that chemtrails are being publicised.  “We get them almost daily in West Wales,” he writes, “I do find this whole thing most distressing.”

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

To The Exposé,

I felt compelled to write to you after seeing two other reports of chemtrails from your readers to comment on the chemtrails over southwest Scotland.

On 16-17th June I suffered from asthma for the first time in over 40 years after spending some hours outside tending to my garden and grounds. I’ve been outdoors since and experienced nothing at all. 

The 17th of June was particularly bad.  Within minutes of being outside in the mid-morning, I had a painful burning, sore sensation in my throat and chest.  The asthma occurred that afternoon and evening – as quick as that!

What’s more the next day, following a little rain overnight, everything – the car, solar panels, window sills etc, etc – was covered in a whitish-grey thick film.

Also, I have never before seen such a “tree die-off” as I have this year. Trees which should be in full bloom at this time in the season have yellowing and brown (burnt looking) leaves on them. Every cherry tree I have is now poorly and/or dying. My main cherry tree is 10+ years old and is now struggling. The tree started the year perfectly – and began to bloom. But in the spring, I started to notice problems and now it is not doing well at all (dying and curled, brown/black leaves). Other trees planted this year are also suffering such as the newly planted hybrid poplars which are supposed to be vigorous, hardy and fast-growing trees.

It seems to be deciduous trees which fare the worst. Early this year I also planted commercial crop trees such as Sitka spruce, Norway spruce and larch. However, these are all thriving.

We see chemtrails here all the time. Some single trails even go at right angles!

Before I moved to Canada 20 years ago, I would plant trees here in the UK and they all would thrive – none of this yellowing and leaf die-off in their peak growing times and certainly, none died. On my return from Canada to here in Dumfries and Galloway 5 years ago – having planted trees on the first year of my return – I started to notice similar problems with the trees. However, I don’t think it has been as bad as this year for die-off. Even a neighbouring farmer mentioned in passing that he had never seen so many trees in such a poor condition as they are now.

Forget the conspiracy theories.  There is no question or doubt in my mind from the evidence of my own eyes – and especially after the experience on 16-17th June – something is being sprayed into the atmosphere which is selectively pathogenic to growing things –including, I’m sure, humans.

Regards,

Al, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland

Note from The Exposé: Last month we published the article ‘UK Government Does Not Deny Chemtrails Exist’ in which we highlighted that the Government does not deny chemtrails exist, they simply deny that the government is deploying Solar Radiation Management (“SRM”) and have no knowledge of chemtrails in UK skies.

To The Exposé

I am very pleased that you are exposing the fact that other people are at last noticing the chemtrails. I have been photographing them going back as early as 16th February 2018. We get them almost daily in West Wales. Recently I have also noticed that there is a peculiar smell.

I would refer you to Dane Wigington’s website geoengineeringwatch.org and his documentary ‘The Dimming’*. I hope people will find this illuminating!

I do find this whole thing most distressing.

Regards,

Druid, Wales

*Note from The Exposé:  We published an article in September 2021 titled ‘What Governments Know, The Adam and Eve Story and Climate Change – We Need to Talk About the Causes of Climate Change’.  Towards the end, we included a section on geoengineering which ends with Dane Wigington’s documentary ‘The Dimming’ embedded.  There are several other resources listed at the end of the article such as ‘Chemtrails Project UK: Campaign to Ban Chemtrails and Geoengineering’, a project with the aim to raise awareness of chemtrails and take action to ban climate geoengineering and weather modification.

If you would like to publish a letter, please email it to contact@theexpose.uk addressed “Letter to the Editor.”  At the end of your email, please indicate the name or pseudonym you would like shown when we publish your letter.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

The TruthLion Cometh Testimony and emerging scientific data regarding the genetic inoculations Robert W Malone MD, MS

“Well, you know what you can do with that pipe dream now, don't you?”

The Iceman Cometh; Eugene O'Neill (1939)

The data concerning SARS-CoV-2 genetic vaccine safety and effectiveness are coming in fast and furious.  Time for a news roundup.

Hope is a marketing slogan, not a basis for mandating Federal public health policy compliance.

Starting at the top, many have long been troubled by the “what in heavens name were they thinking?” question regarding the White House Coronavirus Task Force circa 2020.  Just to recap, the chairperson for the task force was U.S. vice president Mike Pence, and Dr. Deborah Birx (a former Fauci post-doctoral trainee) was named the response coordinator.  Dr. Birx, who has retired from her decades as a public servant, was brought to testify on the hill on June 23 of 2022 before the House select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis, which is led by Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C).  It appears that the intention had been to provide Dr. Birx an opportunity to refute the allegations of Dr. Scott Atlas, MD in his new book  “A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop COVID from Destroying America”.

Here is an excerpt from the book synopsis provided by the publisher:

“When Dr. Scott W. Atlas was tapped by Donald Trump to join his COVID Task Force, he was immediately thrust into a maelstrom of scientific disputes, policy debates, raging egos, politically motivated lies, and cynical media manipulation. Numerous myths and distortions surround the Trump Administration’s handling of the crisis, and many pressing questions remain unanswered. Did the Trump team really bungle the response to the pandemic? Were the right decisions made about travel restrictions, lockdowns, and mask mandates? Are Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx competent medical experts or timeserving bureaucrats? Did half a million people really die unnecessarily because of Trump’s incompetence?

In this unfiltered insider account, Dr. Scott Atlas brings us directly into the White House, describes the key players in the crisis, and assigns credit and blame where it is deserved.

The book includes shocking evaluations of the Task Force members’ limited knowledge and grasp of the science of COVID and details heated discussions with Task Force members, including all of the most controversial episodes that dominated headlines for weeks. Dr. Atlas tells the truth about the science and documents the media’s relentless campaign to suffocate it, which included canceled interviews, journalists’ off-camera hostility in White House briefings, and intentional distortion of facts. He also provides an inside account of the delays and timelines involving vaccines and other treatments, evaluates the impact of the lockdowns on American public health, and indicts the relentless war on truth waged by Big Business and Big Tech.”

Before Dr. Birx had a chance to speak, Representative Jim Jordan (R, OH) asked,

“Dr. Birx, why should Americans believe anything the government says about COVID? I mean, last summer, President Biden said this quote, ‘You’re not going to get COVID. If you have these vaccinations. If you’re vaccinated, you’re not going to be hospitalized, you’re not going to be in the ICU.

Doctor Birx, can vaccinated people get COVID? Have vaccinated people been hospitalized with COVID?

Birx answered yes to both questions. Vaccinated people can get COVID, and vaccinated people have been hospitalized with COVID. As I covered recently in another article, the data are irrefutable, and furthermore in most countries with intact reporting systems, the majority of people hospitalized and dying with COVID are vaccinated. The genetic vaccines do not stop infection, replication, or spread of the Omicron variants. They are not fulfilling their intended purpose.

Representative Jordan then proceeded:

“According to your testimony, it wasn’t just President Biden who said things that were not accurate or not true. Your testimony, that you provided the committee, you said beginning in 2021, the beginning in the Biden administration, again, these are your words, ‘agencies provided muddled and contradicting information or partial information that implied we knew something we didn’t, which they later had to correct, which accelerated the loss of respect and trust in the federal government.’

So I’ll come back to my original question, why should we believe anything the government tells us about COVID?”

I really do not enjoy saying “I told you so”, but there it is. Reality bites.

Here is Dr. Birx’ answer to that key question:

I knew that people who were naturally infected were getting reinfected. And that was quite evident from South Africa. And I’ve included it in my slides. But I think the reason I knew that is, South Africa did a remarkably good job in measuring baseline antibody with their first cert. And so they knew 50, 60, 70% of some of their population had been reinfected.”

Note the deflection? She did not actually address the question.

Rep. Jordan replied:

“Wow. When the government told us that the vaccinated couldn’t be transmitted, was that a lie? Or was that a guess? Or is it the same answer?

To which Dr. Birx responded:

I think they were hoping, but you should know in those original phase three trials that were done in this country, that we only measured for symptomatic disease. So we weren’t proactively testing everybody in those trials to see if they got infected with mild or asymptomatic disease. And so people had to present within the clinical trial. We never had the data that it was going to protect against asymptomatic diseases.”

Again, more deflection wrapped in an excuse.

OK, just to put a fork in it and call it done, this means that the fact that the vaccines were not effective at preventing infection, replication, and transmission of the virus were known to the Response Coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force during the Trump administration, and furthermore, Dr. Birx explicitly acknowledged that the clinical trials were not designed to assess whether the genetic vaccines could enable herd immunity (to achieve which requires a product that can block or seriously reduce transmissibility of the pathogen). Therefore, these facts were known by Dr. Birx well before the time when the Washington Post was accusing me of being a liar for stating precisely this truth on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Of course Youtube has deleted videos of that speech, but it can still be found on Rumble, and the prepared text is still available here.

Suffice to say, Hope concerning effectiveness of a vaccine using previously untested genetic modification technology is not sufficient justification for federal action to block early treatment options, mandate administration of unlicensed Emergency Use authorized vaccine product candidate to all members of the US Military, mandate administration of said product to airline personnel, mandate administration to federal employees and contractors, mandate administration to hospital employees, and attempting to mandate administration to private sector employees. There is no clause concerning Hope as an indicator of efficacy or effectiveness in the Emergency Use Authorization statute 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3.

Just to reinforce the point, the US Constitution does not mention regulation of public health or medical practice as a Federal Government role or responsibility, and therefore the right to manage public health and medical practice practices vests with the States, not with unelected federal bureaucrats such as Dr. Birx and her mentor Dr. Fauci.

There must be accountability and restitution for the damages incurred to those who were mandated by the US Federal Government to receive the unlicensed, Emergency Use Authorized products.

Moving on to other news…

Nature magazine, arguably one of the three most prestigious scientific journals in the world, has come out with three important new additions which advance understanding of the current state of the COVIDcrisis.

First, the recent review written with informed laypersons and non-specialist scientists and in mind:

What Omicron’s BA.4 and BA.5 variants mean for the pandemic

The lineages’ rise seems to stem from their ability to infect people who were immune to earlier forms of Omicron and other variants.

23 June 2022 by Ewen Callaway

Mere weeks after the variant’s BA.2 lineage caused surges globally, two more Omicron spin-offs are on the rise worldwide. First spotted by scientists in South Africa in April and linked to a subsequent rise in cases there, BA.4 and BA.5 are the newest members of Omicron’s growing family of coronavirus subvariants. They have been detected in dozens of countries worldwide.

The BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants are spiking globally because they can spread faster than other circulating variants — mostly BA.2, which caused a surge in cases at the beginning of the year. But so far, the latest Omicron variants seem to be causing fewer deaths and hospitalizations than their older cousins — a sign that growing population immunity is tempering the immediate consequences of COVID-19 surges.

In answer to the question “why are these variants spreading globally”;

“the rise of BA.4 and BA.5 seems to stem…, from their capacity to infect people who were immune to earlier forms of Omicron and other variants, says Christian Althaus, a computational epidemiologist at the University of Bern. With most of the world outside Asia doing little to control SARS-CoV-2, the rise — and inevitable fall — of BA.4 and BA.5 will be driven almost entirely by population immunity, Althaus adds, with cases increasing when protection lulls and falling only when enough people have been infected.

On the basis of the rise of BA.5 in Switzerland — where BA.4 prevalence is low — Althaus estimates that about 15% of people there will get infected. But countries are now likely to have distinct immune profiles because their histories of COVID-19 waves and vaccination rates differ, Althaus adds. As a result, the sizes of BA.4 and BA.5 waves will vary from place to place. “It might be 5% in some countries and 30% in others. It all depends on their immunity profile,” he says.”

What impact will BA.4 and BA.5 have on society?

“In Portugal — where COVID-19 vaccination and boosting rates are very high — the levels of death and hospitalization associated with the latest wave are similar to those in the first Omicron wave (although still nothing like the impact caused by earlier variants).

One explanation for the difference could be Portugal’s demographics, says Althaus. “The more elderly people you have, the more severe disease.” Jassat thinks that the nature of a country’s immunity can also explain varying outcomes. About half of adult South Africans have been vaccinated, and just 5% have taken up a booster. But this, combined with sky-high infection rates from earlier COVID-19 waves, has erected a wall of ‘hybrid immunity’ that offers strong protection against severe disease, particularly in older people, who are the most likely to have been vaccinated, she adds.”

How well do vaccines work against the variants?

“Lab studies consistently suggest that antibodies triggered by vaccination are less effective at blocking BA.4 and BA.5 than they are at blocking earlier Omicron strains, including BA.1 and BA.226. This could leave even vaccinated and boosted people vulnerable to multiple Omicron infections, scientists say. Even people with hybrid immunity, stemming from vaccination and previous infection with Omicron BA.1, produce antibodies that struggle to incapacitate BA.4 and BA.5. Research teams have attributed that to the variants’ L452R and F486V spike mutations.

One explanation for this is the observation that BA.1 infection after vaccination seems to trigger infection-blocking ‘neutralizing’ antibodies that recognize the ancestral strain of SARS-CoV-2 (the one that vaccines are based on) better than they recognize Omicron variants2,7. “Infection with BA.1 does induce a neutralizing antibody response, but it appears to be a little bit narrower than one would expect,” leaving people susceptible to immune-escaping variants such BA.4 and BA.5, says Ravindra Gupta, a virologist at the University of Cambridge, UK.”

Based on the published peer-reviewed studies that I have been reading lately, I conclude that the problem is a bit more profound that Dr. Gupta indicates. The viral variants appear to be evolving to exploit aspects of the immunologic phenomenon of “immune imprinting”.

What will come next?

“Increasingly, scientists think that variants including Omicron and Alpha probably originated from months-long chronic SARS-CoV-2 infections, in which sets of immune-evading and transmissibility-boosting mutations can build up. But the longer Omicron and its offshoots continue to dominate, the less likely it is that a totally new variant will emerge from a chronic infection, says Mahan Ghafari, who researches viral evolution at the University of Oxford, UK.”

And those chronic infections seem to be occurring in the immunologically compromised and the fraction (30% to 60%, depending in part on how long since last dose) of vaccinated-then-infected persons that are susceptible (for whatever reason) to frequent re-infection by Omicron variants.

“To succeed, future variants will have to evade immunity. But they could come with other worrying properties. Sato’s team found that BA.4 and BA.5 were deadlier in hamsters than was BA.2, and better able to infect cultured lung cells6. Epidemiology studies, such as the one led by Jassat, suggest that successive COVID-19 waves are getting milder. But this trend should not be taken for granted, Sato cautions. Viruses don’t necessarily evolve to become less deadly.”

As Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD has been darkly warning for some time now.

"It’s also unclear when the next variant will appear. BA.4 and BA.5 started emerging in South Africa only a few months after BA.1 and BA.2, a pattern now being repeated in places including the United Kingdom and United States. But as global immunity from repeated vaccination and infection builds, Althaus expects the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 waves to slow down.

One possible future for SARS-CoV-2 is that it will become like the other four seasonal coronaviruses, the levels of which ebb and flow with the seasons, usually peaking in winter and typically reinfecting people every three years or so, Althaus says. “The big question is whether symptoms will become milder and milder and whether issues with long COVID will slowly disappear,” he says. “If it stays like it is now, then it will be a serious public-health problem.”

Other recent “Nature” branded papers which merit reading and consideration include:

Clinical outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant and BA.1/BA.1.1 or BA.2 subvariant infection in southern California

“Epidemiologic surveillance has revealed decoupling of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths from case counts following emergence of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 variant globally.”

Basically, that means that Omicron appears to be less severe compared to prior. But is this true for one of the newer Omicron variants (BA.2), or is that one worse?

“Infections with the Omicron BA.2 subvariant were not associated with differential risk of severe outcomes in comparison to BA.1/BA.1.1 subvariant infections.”

So there is the answer to that question. So what?

“Lower risk of severe clinical outcomes among cases with Omicron variant infection should inform public health response amid establishment of the Omicron variant as the dominant SARS-CoV-2 lineage globally.”

In other words, it is time to change public health policies to reflect the new reality.

What about the newer Omicron variants?

BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 escape antibodies elicited by Omicron infection

“SARS-CoV-2 Omicron sublineages BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 exhibit higher transmissibility over BA.21. The new variants’ receptor binding and immune evasion capability require immediate investigation. Here, coupled with Spike structural comparisons, we show that BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 exhibit comparable ACE2-binding affinities to BA.2.”

“Our results indicate that Omicron may evolve mutations to evade the humoral immunity elicited by BA.1 infection, suggesting that BA.1-derived vaccine boosters may not achieve broad-spectrum protection against new Omicron variants.”

To be blunt, now may be the time to relax restrictions, and we definitely need to stop administering leaky vaccines to everyone that can be compelled or enticed to accept same, but absolutely not the time to celebrate victory and spike the ball. Vigilance is going to be required for the foreseeable future.

Then, from Childrens Health Defense, we have this article revealing why the CDC has missed the largest vaccine safety signal in history. Basically, by not looking for it in their own database.

CDC Admits It Never Monitored VAERS for COVID Vaccine Safety Signals

In response to a Freedom of Information Request submitted by Children’s Health Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last week admitted it never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

June 21, 2022 by Josh Guetzkow, Ph.D.

“In a stunning development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last week admitted — despite assurances to the contrary — the agency never analyzed the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for safety signals for COVID-19 vaccines.

The admission was revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by Children’s Health Defense (CHD).”

This one, based on preliminary scientific reports, may reflect “The Guardian” fearporn, but it bears close monitoring for additional developments:

New omicron variants target lungs and escape antibodies

Preliminary research from the University of Tokyo has sparked a debate about whether the newest omicron variants are of great concern or not

June 22, 2022 By  Gitanjali Poonia

“The risk that strains BA.4 and BA.5 pose “to global health is potentially greater than that of original BA.2,” said Dr. Kei Sato, the study’s lead author, per The Guardian.

“It looks as though these things are switching back to the more dangerous form of infection, so going lower down in the lung,” said Dr. Stephen Griffin, a virologist at the University of Leeds, per the report.”

Here is the source pre-print article:

Virological characteristics of the novel SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variants including BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5

“After the global spread of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.2 lineage, some BA.2-related variants that acquire mutations in the L452 residue of spike protein, such as BA.2.9.1 and BA.2.13 (L452M), BA.2.12.1 (L452Q), and BA.2.11, BA.4 and BA.5 (L452R), emerged in multiple countries. Our statistical analysis showed that the effective reproduction numbers of these L452R/M/Q-bearing BA.2-related Omicron variants are greater than that of the original BA.2. Neutralization experiments revealed that the immunity induced by BA.1 and BA.2 infections is less effective against BA.4/5. Cell culture experiments showed that BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/5 replicate more efficiently in human alveolar epithelial cells than BA.2, and particularly, BA.4/5 is more fusogenic than BA.2. Furthermore, infection experiments using hamsters indicated that BA.4/5 is more pathogenic than BA.2. Altogether, our multiscale investigations suggest that the risk of L452R/M/Q-bearing BA.2-related Omicron variants, particularly BA.4 and BA.5, to global health is potentially greater than that of original BA.2.”

And from the New England Journal of Medicine, we have this little gem, with a conclusion written to be as supportive of the approved narrative as possible, but the data are the data..

Effects of Previous Infection and Vaccination on Symptomatic Omicron

Infections

RESULTS

The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 46.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.5 to 51.9). The effectiveness of vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was negligible (−1.1%; 95% CI, −7.1 to 4.6), but nearly all persons had received their second dose more than 6 months earlier. The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9). The effectiveness of previous infection and two doses of BNT162b2 was 55.1% (95% CI, 50.9 to 58.9), and the effectiveness of previous infection and three doses of BNT162b2 was 77.3% (95% CI, 72.4 to 81.4). Previous infection alone, BNT162b2 vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity all showed strong effectiveness (>70%) against severe, critical, or fatal Covid-19 due to BA.2 infection. Similar results were observed in analyses of effectiveness against BA.1 infection and of vaccination with mRNA-1273.

CONCLUSIONS

No discernible differences in protection against symptomatic BA.1 and BA.2 infection were seen with previous infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity. Vaccination enhanced protection among persons who had had a previous infection. Hybrid immunity resulting from previous infection and recent booster vaccination conferred the strongest protection.”

Jaded eyes, grown weary from reading chronic NEJM spin regarding the genetic inoculations being marketed as vaccines, interpret the data slight differently;

“This study was huge in scale, sifting through data collected from over 100,000 people infected by the Omicron variant. It lends credibility to the statistical significance of the findings, which are absolutely startling. Here are the key points:

Those who have been "fully vaccinated" with two shots from Moderna or Pfizer are more likely to contract Covid-19 than those who have not been vaccinated at all

Booster shots offer protection approximately equal to natural immunity, but the benefits wane after 2-5 months

Natural immunity lasts for at least 300-days, which is the length of the study; it likely lasts much longer”

“The authors of the study found that those who had a prior infection but no vaccination had a 46.1 and 50 percent immunity against the two subvariants of the Omicron variant, even at an interval of more than 300 days since the previous infection.

However, individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine but had no previous infection, were found with negative immunity against both BA.1 and BA.2 Omicron subvariants, indicating an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 than an average person.

Over six months after getting two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -3.4 percent. But for two doses of the Moderna vaccine, immunity against any Omicron infection dropped to -10.3 percent after more than six months since the last injection.

Though the authors reported that three doses of the Pfizer vaccine increased immunity to over 50 percent, this was measured just over 40 days after the third vaccination, which is a very short interval. In comparison, natural immunity persisted at around 50 percent when measured over 300 days after the previous infection, while immunity levels fell to negative figures 270 days after the second dose of vaccine.

These figures indicate a risk of waning immunity for the third vaccine dose as time progresses.

The findings are supported by another recent study from Israel that also found natural immunity waned significantly more slowly compared to artificial, or vaccinated, immunity. The study found that both natural and artificial immunity waned over time.

Individuals that were previously infected but not vaccinated had half the risks of reinfection as compared to those that were vaccinated with two doses but not infected.

“Natural immunity wins again,” Dr. Martin Adel Makary, a public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, wrote on Twitter, referring to the Israeli study.

“Among persons who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, protection against reinfection decreased as the time increased,” the authors concluded, “however, this protection was higher” than protection conferred in the same time interval through two doses of the vaccine.”

The truth will out. We just need to set it free, and it will defend itself. The lion abides.

Subscribe to Who is Robert Malone

By Robert W Malone MD  ·  Tens of thousands of paid subscribers

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Letter to the Editor: Drag Acts Are for Adults and Not for Children BY RHODA WILSON

Last week a concerned member of the LGBT community contacted Oxfordshire Libraries to inform them of her disapproval for allowing libraries to be used for the Drag Queen Story Hour UK tour. “This is not inclusive. This is subjecting children to something that belongs in the adult world. Drag is for adults, not children,” Let Sense Prevail, as we have called her, wrote.

Oxfordshire Libraries responded: “As a library aiming to serve a diverse community of people, we are pleased to host and support a wide range of audience experiences.”

Let Sense Prevail has requested her email to Oxfordshire Libraries and the Libraries’ response are published as a follow-up to a letter The Exposé published on Wednesday titled ‘Drag Queen Story Hour UK Coming to a Library Near You, Now’s the Time to Act‘.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

To: Oxfordshire Libraries

As a member of the LGBT community, I would like to speak out against this.

This is not inclusive. This is subjecting children to something that belongs in the adult world. Drag is for adults, not children. You have gone too far with “inclusivity.”  Some things are not suitable for children and drag is one of them. This is inappropriate and frankly unnecessary.

You could have had a disabled person come and speak as disability is something that affects both adults and children.

As a member of the LGBT community, I do not find this inclusive of LGBT and don’t think children need to even know about this stuff till they are much older. LGBT stuff is to do with sexuality which is not suitable for children. They don’t need to learn about sexuality until at least secondary school and even then, it should be done in a more tasteful way.

This is harmful to children and you need to stop it immediately. I certainly do not want this done in my name.

Regards,

Let Sense Prevail

To: Let Sense Prevail,

Oxfordshire Libraries thanks you for getting in touch and notes your comments.

As a library aiming to serve a diverse community of people, we are pleased to host and support a wide range of audience experiences. We are confident that the performance of Drag Queen Story Hour UK is appropriate and well suited for the advertised age groups by professional children’s entertainers and literary fanatics.

Parents who have attended previous performances at other libraries in the country have shared very positive feedback about the event, its suitability for younger audiences, and their children’s enjoyment of it. The nature of the event is clearly advertised, and we believe will attract those who feel comfortable and positive about its content.

Aida H Dee, The Storytime Drag Queen, the performer, is patron of Autistic Inclusive Meets London, a professional and published children’s author, a five-star Edinburgh Fringe act, has been featured in Forbes Magazine for being an activist for neurodivergence and has recently been shortlisted as Local Leader Of The Year 2022 by PinkNews for the nationally acclaimed PinkNews Awards.

We look forward to welcoming everyone to the libraries we visit.

Regards,

J.M.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Essex Care Home Locked Down After “Fully Vaccinated” Residents Tested Positive for Covid BY RHODA WILSON

Public Health England has forced the closure of a care home in Essex for at least two weeks after 10 residents test positive for Covid. It is understood that all the care home’s residents have been injected with four doses of the “safe and effective” Covid “vaccine.”

In its ‘Living with Covid-19’ strategy, from 24 February the UK government, amongst others, removed the legal requirement to self-isolate following a positive test and revoked The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 3) Regulations – after which local authorities will continue to manage local outbreaks of Covid in high-risk settings as they do with other infectious diseases.

However, it seems some local authorities are addicted to the unscientific, harmful and destructive “Covid pandemic” measures, despite lateral flow or PCR tests being unable to detect whether or not someone is infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Bristol City Council, for example, considers an “outbreak” as “2 or more confirmed cases of coronavirus (Covid-19) among workers or visitors to a workplace within 14 days.”  The Council doesn’t only apply their rules to “high-risk” settings but to ALL workplaces. “You may be told about positive coronavirus cases by an employee and/or a customer,” the Council states.

After an outbreak is reported, Bristol Council says, a health protection team will be assigned and will carry out a risk assessment; provide public health advice, including whether you should close your business; and where necessary, establish a multi-agency incident management team to manage the outbreak.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

The Essex care home has told staff it is locking down for “at least two weeks” after an eighth of its 87 fully Covid injected residents tested positive for Covid, News Uncut reported yesterday.

It is understood that all residents and staff have received all four injections against Covid, with 10 residents returning a positive test.

Under Public Health England guidance, just TWO cases of Covid are considered an “outbreak”, with emergency measures now put in place.

Public Health England: Infection Prevention and Control, An Outbreak Information Pack for Care Homes, The “Care Home Pack”, published September 2017

UK Health Security Agency: Chapter 4: action in the event of an outbreak or incident, Updated 5 May 2022

Staff will still be allowed in but freelance workers such as outside entertainment, hairdressers and chiropodists will be banned – meaning yet another hit to their income and reduction of service and human contact for residents.

One source, who did not want to be named, said: “As far as I can tell, none of the residents are ill, or showing any symptoms. Regular staff are allowed to go in and out but, because I’m not regular, I’m not allowed to and will lose more money. It’s a farce.”

It is not yet confirmed whether family members have been told by the care home that they cannot visit for two weeks.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx

Sudden Adult [Vaccine] Death Syndrome: Excess Deaths in Australia are up 18% since the start of 2022 but only 6% of all deaths have been attributed to COVID-19

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has revealed that Australia has been suffering a huge amount of excess deaths compared to the historical average since around October 2021, with figures revealing the number of Australians who have lost their lives in 2022 is 18% higher than the historical average.

However, the unusual rise in deaths cannot be attributed to Covid-19 because just 6% of all deaths in 2022 have been attributed to the alleged disease.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

EMAIL ADDRESS

SUBSCRIBE


Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 44,331 deaths occurred by the 27th of March 2022, which is 6,609 more deaths than the historical average, equating to an 18% rise in deaths.

However, of the 44,331 deaths to have occurred by 27th March, just 2,903 deaths were associated with Covid-19, equating to just 6% of all deaths.

The following chart provided by the ABS shows all deaths by week of occurrence in Australia from 29th March 2021 to 27th March 2022 compared to the historical average.

Source

As you can see from the above, excess deaths began to occur across the country from around October 2021, but have risen exponentially since the beginning of 2022.

The following chart provided by the ABS shows the number of Covid-19 infections and Covid-19 deaths across Australia between 29th March 2021 and 27th March 2022.

Source

As you can see from the above, Covid-19 deaths began to rise at the beginning of August 2021, before peaking in October, and then rising exponentially from the middle of January 2022. The significant rise does not however explain the 18% increase in excess deaths since the beginning of 2022.

It should also be noted from the above how Covid-19 deaths were virtually non-existent across the country prior to August 2021. Yet despite millions of Australians being vaccinated, they then began to rise. The January peak is extremely worrying due to the fact nearly 80% of Australians were considered fully vaccinated against Covid-19 by this point.

And now despite nearly 90% of Australians being considered fully vaccinated as of June 2022, the country is still riding the largest wave of deaths to have hit Australia since the beginning of the alleged pandemic in March 2020.

It isn’t the unvaccinated who are dying either. The Government of New South Wales has been revealing the number of deaths by vaccination status in a new daily ‘Covid-19 Statistics’ update, the full list of which can be found here.

We went through the 31 reports for March 22 and tallied up the deaths by vaccination status which were as follows –

Between 1st and 31st March 22, the Government of New South Wales claims 195 people sadly lost their lives. This is 8 times as many deaths as what occurred during the first three months of the pandemic in New South Wales Australia back in 2020.

Of the 195 people to sadly lose their lives in March 22, just 31 were considered not-vaccinated, but even this may not be true because the Government of New South Wales still considers a person unvaccinated within 21 days of actually being injected with a Covid-19 jab.

The highest number of Covid-19 deaths was recorded among the double vaccinated population with 92 deaths, but the triple vaccinated population was not far behind with 67 deaths. Even the quadruple vaccinated population have got in on the action with 1 death being recorded.

So if Covid-19 isn’t to blame for the 18% increase in excess deaths across Australia since the turn of the year, then what is?

Could it have something to do with the dramatic rise in Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), that has doctors both concerned and baffled?

In Australia, people aged under 40 are being urged to have their hearts checked “because they may potentially be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome”, with Melbourne’s Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute currently developing the country’s first SADS registry.

Doctors say the syndrome, known as SADS, has been fatal for all kinds of people regardless of whether they maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.

“SADS is an umbrella term to describe unexpected deaths in young people”, said The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.

But it turns out the term is actually used when a post-mortem cannot find an obvious cause of death, and the reason doctors are struggling to find an obvious cause of death is that we’re now seeing thousands of deaths due to something that was impossible to occur prior to 2021. Covid-19 vaccination.

This becomes obvious once you know where to look. But the problem is doctors are actively discouraged from looking and it is not publicised in the mainstream media.

However, all the answers doctors are looking for to explain what they are dubbing Sudden Adult Death Syndrome, are contained in official Government data.

For starters, data from an ONS dataset on deaths in England by vaccination status which can be found here, show that vaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds are more likely to die than unvaccinated 18 to 39-year-olds.

The following chart shows the average-age standardised mortality rate to have occurred between 1st Jan 21 and 31st Jan 22 by vaccination status for all-cause deaths, per 100,000 person-years among adults aged 18 to 39 in England –

On average the one-dose vaccinated were 51% more likely to die than the unvaccinated between 1st Jan 21 and 31st Jan 22. Whilst the double vaccinated were 91.4% more likely to die than the unvaccinated between 1st Jan 21 and 31st Jan 22. And based on the small amount of data available so far, on average the triple vaccinated are on average 25.3% more likely to die than the unvaccinated.

What these official figures from the UK’s Office for National Statistics strongly suggest is that Covid-19 vaccination kills and increases a person’s risk of death due to any cause. And this increased risk of death isn’t because so many people have been vaccinated, these are figures per 100,000.

So it looks like we may have just found the answer as to why Australia has seen an 18% rise in excess deaths in 2021 so far.

And that answer is ‘Covid-19 vaccination’.

Telegram Channel

https://t.me/+LtveYCKl-JtlNzkx