UK govt tacitly admits mRNA experiment has failed. Media Silent

Written by Joel Smalley on January 27, 2023. Posted in Current News

In case you missed it, yesterday, the UK government (through its agencies) made a major announcement on the availability of the COVID “vaccine” (albeit a decision made in Nov last year that they’ve sat on for almost 3 months for some reason)

In summary, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advises that healthy people, aged under 50 should no longer be “offered” (whatever that term really means) the COVID “vaccine”.

The JVCI still advises that everyone else should still be “offered” boosters at various intervals to coincide with seasonal viral activity.

The lies…

In detail, they claim that it was always about:

reduction of severe disease (hospitalisation and mortality) across the population, while protecting the NHS.

OK, so…

Why have they been coercing “offering” it to people who were never at discernible risk of severe disease for the best part of two years?

And how did they conclude that the “vaccine” was effective in reducing severe disease when this wasn’t an endpoint evaluated in the clinical trial used for emergency use authorisation and isn’t evident in the real-world data?

How can the NHS be “protected” if there was no evidence that the “vaccine” reduced demand for COVID-related healthcare provision, as it was not an endpoint evaluated in the clinical trial used for emergency use authorisation?

They also claim that things have changed – in the age of Omicron, there are high levels of population immunity:

through vaccination and/or natural infection…

Whilst the latter part of that statement is true (well-substantiated in the literature and the data), the former is quite false.

The evidence is clear that the “vaccine” does not prevent infection. It is not a “vaccine”. It does not contribute to population immunity.

It is a lie.

It is misinformation direct from the govt agency, in black and white.

They state:

the risk of severe COVID-19 continues to be disproportionately greater in those from older age groups, residents in care homes for older adults, and persons with certain underlying health conditions.

This is actually true. It has always been thus.

But… the evidence that the “vaccine” does not prevent infection (and subsequently transmission) has also been known since pretty much the start of the vaccination campaigns (and was never claimed by the “vaccine” manufacturers), which begs the question:

Why is the “vaccine” promoted to everyone, healthy, as young as five, still to this very day, since the change in advice does not kick in until mid-Feb this year?

In coming to their conclusion, the JVCI estimated that:

over 97 percent of adults in England had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, either from infection or vaccination, by the end of August 2022.

Even ordinary people who get their information from Substack instead of the BBC know that not all antibodies are equal!

1. They don’t seem to make a distinction between antibodies against the spike antigen (S-protein) rather than the nucleocapsid (N-protein), the latter being produced subsequent to natural infection, giving a more durable and robust immunity since that antigen mutates less, whereas the spike antigen mutates more frequently and is the single target of the “vaccine”.
2. They don’t make any distinction between secretory IgA antibodies, again derived from natural infection, that provide mucosal immunity which does help to prevent infection and transmission, and circulatory IgG antibodies, produced by the “vaccine”, that do not.
3. They do not make the distinction between IgG4 antibodies that attenuate the immunological response (tolerate the pathogen) and are produced in more abundance subsequent to vaccination, rather than neutralise the pathogen like other IgG class antibodies do, which are in more abundance in naturally immune people.

Otherwise, great stuff from the highest government agency on vaccinology!

They further stated:

Natural immunity alone provides good levels of protection against severe COVID-19 while the combination of natural and vaccine-induced immunity (hybrid immunity) is associated with even higher levels of protection.

Again, the former part of this statement is absolutely true (it was even true before the pandemic was ever introduced by the way). Unfortunately, again, the latter not so much, especially the “even higher” bit.

In fact, the only one of the three references they provide to support their claim was sponsored by the WHO. Hmmm… trust them much?

And the other two references conclude (my emphases):

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and COVID-19 hospitalisation in individuals who have survived and recovered from a previous infection remained low for up to 20 months.

Vaccination seemed to further decrease the risk of both outcomes for up to 9 months, although the differences in absolute numbers, especially in hospitalisations, were small.

Health-care workers who had received two doses of mRNA vaccine and had previous BA.1 infection were subsequently well protected for a prolonged period against BA.2 reinfection, with a third vaccine dose conferring no improvement to that hybrid protection.

If this protection also pertains to future variants, there might be limited benefit from additional vaccine doses for people with hybrid immunity, depending on timing and variant.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of “hybrid” immunity, is it?

I’m not seeing how this translates into “even higher” when the differences were actually “small” and “no improvement”, with the benefit described as “limited”.

Another lie.

And no mention whatsoever of so-called “immunity” from vaccine only. Er… because there isn’t any, perhaps?

Indeed, again from their very own reference material, most of the vaccinated got infected after vaccination.

The presence of antibodies to the N-protein (the more robust immunity) does not increase to significant levels until well after the entire country has allegedly produced antibodies to the S-protein.

Worse still, according to the scientific literature, the vaccinated only seroconvert to the N-protein after severe infection. Oops!

Furthermore, they state:

Not all hospitalisations and deaths ascribed to SARS-CoV-2 infection are vaccine-preventable events.

Due to the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant, together with infection that can be asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic, persons who require hospital care for non-COVID-19 reasons may be coincidentally infected with SARS-CoV-2. Such hospitalisations are not preventable through COVID-19 vaccination.

In contrast, some highly vulnerable individuals may develop severe COVID-19 despite being vaccinated; these individuals often have underlying health conditions that confer high susceptibility to severe disease from other infections as well.

In the UK, during the Omicron era (up to week 43, 2022), the highest rates of hospitalisations were consistently observed in persons aged 75 years and over, while rates of infection (non-severe illness) were high across all ages and especially among younger persons.

No sh1t, Sherlock!

So, way back when we said that they were overcounting COVID incidents because most of the time, it was incidental, we were shouted down as COVID “deniers”.

But, now that they need a change of narrative, it suddenly becomes a material consideration?

Ditto when we said that the majority of people who got severe COVID were already prone to severe disease of any kind…

It has always been the case that COVID was only a disease of concern for old, seriously unhealthy people.

How is it only now that the JVCI acknowledges the obvious fact that even if the “vaccine” were effective in reducing severe disease, it should only be “offered” to the old and infirm?

Moreover…

Where is the risk-benefit analysis for 2021?

Where is the risk-benefit analysis for 2020?

Nothing has changed in terms of COVID risk. Since the days of Diamond Princess in early 2020, it has been known that a small section of society (~2 percent) needed protection from COVID.

Why is the JVCI only now making the correct advice based on potential benefit?

Why was it conspicuously absent when they advised that everyone over 19 should get boosted in Nov 2021?

Why did the JVCI advise a month later, that healthy children as young as 5 years old should get vaccinated if they live in a household with someone who is immunocompromised if the vaccine has never been demonstrated to reduce infection and transmission?

Talking of risks, if this is supposed to finally be some sort of public risk-benefit analysis of “vaccines”, where is the risk bit?

Apparently, the advice has changed based on perceived reduction in benefit but no account has ever been made of vaccine risk?

The report actually provides the JVCI’s own estimate of NNV (number needed to vaccinate) to prevent ONE hospitalisation:

• 800 persons aged 70 years and above would need to be given a booster in autumn 2022 (a fourth dose);
• NNV for persons aged 50 to 59 years is 8,000;
• For persons aged 40 to 49 years who are not in a clinical risk group [NNV] is 92,500.

Given that it seems they haven’t done the analysis with data prior to July 2022, this is all we have to go on. Unfortunately, the fact that they have conspicuously omitted the risk associated with vaccination, we have to fill that bit in ourselves.

According to this peer-reviewed article – Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest Following mRNA Vaccination in Randomized Trials – there is a 1 in 757 chance of a serious adverse event subsequent to mRNA vaccination with either the Pfizer or Moderna product, both of which were available in the UK.

The average age of the trial participants was around 50.

So, although there is no age-stratification in the trial data analysis, it is clear that the risk-benefit for all cohorts mentioned by JVCI is most likely negative, substantially negative for the younger, healthier population. Let’s call it minus 10X on average?

I guess that’s why there’s no mention of risk in this risk-benefit analysis, right?

Now, this analysis was done on the trial data that was available to the MHRA prior to the rollout of the “vaccine”. This analysis was first published in preprint in June 2022 and peer-reviewed in Sept 2022, both dates well before the JVCI report.

So, there is no excuse for the JVCI not “considering” this valuable information, is there?

As if that was not bad enough, the NNV calculation is based on estimates of vaccine effectiveness (VE) that the JVCI include in the Appendix to the report. Inevitably, these estimates are all really positive.

And yet, as evidenced by the data in their own report (also buried in the Appendix), there is negative vaccine effectiveness in the real-world data. In other words, outcomes are worse for the vaccinated, not better. That’ll be the vaccine-associated enhanced disease for you.

Yes, of course, at first glance, it looks like the boosted population have protection over the unvaccinated but this is just a statistical illusion created by splitting the vaccinated into two groups and casually ignoring the 1 and 2 dosed cohorts since they are no longer “fully protected”.

Never mind that they have worse outcomes than the unvaccinated. It’s just survivorship bias – think crossing a busy motorway from the central reservation to the greater relative safety of the hard shoulder but ignoring everyone who gets run over in your “benefit” analysis!

Talking of biases… From the JVCI:

Note that the rates given in Table 1 are crude rates by age and vaccination status and should not be compared with one another to infer vaccine effectiveness.

Rates will be affected by previous infections and other differences between groups.

For example, those unvaccinated are likely to have had higher prior infection rates than those vaccinated which can reduce recent incidence in this group.

Right, so when outcomes in the unvaccinated are better than the vaccinated, ignore that as it’s due to bias and confounding factors. Got it?!

More lies…

If you’re confused why these biases were not highlighted when the ONS was reporting amazing VE results, headlined by the mainstream media without hesitation back in mid-2021, don’t be!

The simple explanation is that stats are only reliable when they support the narrative and can, therefore, be used to promote the “vaccine”, not when they contradict it.

Oh, and by the way, when they say “those unvaccinated are likely to have had higher prior infection rates than those vaccinated which can reduce recent incidence in this group”, they really mean that natural immunity is superior to “vaccine immunity” but they really don’t want to say it out loud.

After a while, your mental gymnastics catches up with you though, and there is nowhere left to hide your cognitive dissonance.

I guess the only positive we can draw from this is that no more rational, healthy people will feel the need to continue subjecting themselves to the mRNA experiment and less public money will be wasted on the endeavour in favour of government’s Big Pharma paymasters.

But, again, even according to their own report, this was happening anyway as more and more people are forced to wake up to the realisation that there is more risk than benefit for pretty much every one from this, er, product.

See more here substack.com

Some bold emphasis added

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.