The CDC | AMERICAN LIBERTY with BILL LOCKWOOD

Tag Archives: The CDC

John Anthony: You Trust Your Government. Don’t You? 4 (1)

Posted on March 11, 2022 by Leave a comment

by John Anthony

I told my friend of Trudeau’s remark that anyone who did not vote to extend his emergency powers was indicating they “don’t trust the government to make incredibly momentous and important decisions at a very difficult time.”

She laughed. “Maybe that’s because the government created that very difficult time!” she said.

We got a good chuckle because everyone knows here in the US, you can’t trust a word the government says…or do they?

I was stunned to find 25% of parents have already rushed their 5 to 11 year-olds to get fully vaccinated in spite of growing evidence of increased injuries and teen deaths following the jab.

Why would anyone trust a government that is cotinually wrong?

“Experts” estimate without lock downs 14X as many Americans would have died from COVID-19 a completely absurd number given the PCR test the government used was incapable of identifying the SARS-2 virus.
By attributing a host of deaths from other causes to COVID-19 the government catastrophized what now appears to be an over-hyped bad flu season. Flu deaths miraculously dropped by 97% during the pandemic and none of the experts could explain it! Must be “social distancing”, “hand washing”, “people stayed home” they rambled on.

It’s not only that our bloated government are incompetent bunglers. Often they intentionally hide information.

When the public demanded the FDA release the Pfizer vaccine trial data we were told it would take 75 years. Yet the same agency assures us it took only 108 days to conduct a robust and thorough investigation of all the data before issuing Pfizer’s emergency use authorization.
Perhaps the FDA was reluctant to show the data because the initial release showed more than 50,000 serious adverse events and 1223 people died following the vaccine within 90 days of the rollout.
Recently it was discovered the CDC is hiding massive amounts of granular data that would enable doctors and patients to make better vaccine decisions. Their excuse is that people are incapable of properly interpreting the information and it might lead to “vaccine hesitancy.”

The bigger question is why anyone would accept at face value what this government says. And yet, many do.

Is it possible the ubiquitous extent of government disinformation is too big for most Americans to get their arms around? Is it that we are desperate to believe someone to relieve our own anxiety? Or is it that we have become so fractionated we are willing to rationalize complete twaddle to remain in good standing with our socio-political tribe?

Secrecy and dishonesty permeate the government.

Though “everyone knows” the 2020 election was not stolen, the administration urged federal judges not to release any damning information about the controversial Dominion voting machines. They only want to hide the information, they say, to “protect election security.”
Despite claims videos from January 6^th could resolve questions about the incident, the Speaker of the House declared sovereign immunity to prevent the public from suing for their release.
Instead of public hearings as in the Nixon case, The September 2019 Trump impeachment was partially conducted in private in the basement of the capital where none of the public could hear the sworn testimony.
Underage migrants are quietly flown to U.S. cities under cover of night.

The government is not a reliable source for information. Like an errant spouse caught cheating, they hide, dissemble, and blame. They may not lie about every issue, but the federal government is so massively dishonest that the only reasonable response is to question all they say and look for the source material.

Still think you can trust the government?

On July 8, 2015, the House passed HR-5 to reauthorize the states’ education money. The bill contained an astounding section enabling the federal government to gain control of local public education and of your child’s public education if the state accepted the money.

Several of us called Representative Kline’s office who denied knowing the clause was there but agreed to remove it. Instead, they moved it ahead 25 pages. You can read the section highlighted on pages 564-565 under “Restoration of State Sovereignty Over Public Education and Parental Rights Over the Education of Their Children.”

Governments have always been about power. Over time “serving the people” becomes a means to expand that power. Lies and treachery are the tools that enable moves like “every vote counts” (especially the illegal ones), vaccines for all, and the Great Reset.

Our Founders knew that, and it is why our original documents severely limit federal authority.

They also knew politicians could be clever and persuasive. After all, Trudeau ended his plea for more power by equating totalitarianism with democracy!

SFL: https://sustainablefreedomlab.org/2022/02/27/you-trust-your-government-dont-you/

John Anthony is a patriot and a conservative blogger. Read his commentary along with other interesting information at Sustainable Freedom Lab.

Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.: THE DISCRIMINATION OF VACCINE STATUS 3 (1)

Posted on January 27, 2022 by Leave a comment

by Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Discrimination definition from Merriam-Webster
discrimination noun
dis·crim·i·na·tion | \ di-ˌskri-mə-ˈnā-shən
Essential Meaning of discrimination:
the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups
of people

Most people know the definition of discrimination, particularly when applied to certain
situations such as race, age, gender, housing, disabilities. We have all become very sensitive
and responsive to these issues. But now we are seeing discrimination that may not be
recognized as such. Let me explain.

City managers, local judges, and others are now deciding who qualifies for sick leave payment
based upon their Covid-19 vaccination status. The assumption has been vaccination results in
immunity. That assumption might have been valid one year ago but the science and the data
now overwhelmingly demonstrates vaccine status does not equal immune status with these
genetic “vaccines” for Covid-19.

Try to look at it this way: Could an employee donate their sick time into the pool and specify
that it only be used for white people? How about someone of Christian faith specify their sick
time only be given to fellow Christians? If you are a follower of Islam or the Jewish faith, well,
no sick time money for you. What if the city manager is Republican and decides the sick leave
policy only applies to Republicans and not to Democrats?

Of course, these are absurd examples and would be immediately rejected and the person
proposing such a thing would be rightfully labeled a racial or religious bigot. And what does
politics and political party affiliation have to do with infection and sick leave? Obviously,
nothing.

Paid sick leave is to be about the objective determination of health status, not vaccine status.
Unfortunately, the public health establishment led by the CDC and what has become to be
widely recognized as the politicized Covid response narrative, have convinced local political
and business leaders and half of the population that vaccine status determines a person’s
immune status.

Even a casual review of the Covid 19 infection data of the past few months, and particularly
with the emergence of the omicron variant, would lead a reasonable person to conclude a
“vaccinated” person is infected as easily as an unvaccinated person. The Covid “vaccines”
have not delivered on what was promised.

But don’t just take my word for it. Even the CDC, has now said the “vaccinated” are infected
and transmit the virus as easily as the “unvaccinated”. And the “unvaccinated” is not a
monolithic group, but rather, a group comprised of both never infected and previously infected
people. The previously infected now have natural immunity and are less likely to become
reinfected than the “vaccinated” group. The CDC has now finally recognized natural immunity
to the Covid virus is superior to vaccine immunity.

Just like the discriminatory practice of restricting sick leave based upon racial, religious, or
political party affiliation, basing sick leave only upon “vaccine” status is discrimination, straight
up, and has nothing to do with the public health goal of reduced transmission of the virus to
others.

And keep in mind the often raised argument for vaccination to reduce severity of disease is a
treatment argument and not a vaccination argument. The primary public health indication for
vaccination is to reduce infection, replication, and transmission of a virus. These genetic
“vaccines” have been shown to have failed those public health endpoints. These inoculations
may reduce severity of disease in the high risk patient, but that is not the issue when decisions
are being made about 5 days paid sick leave.

So let us move beyond uninformed and misinformed perceptions of the science and beyond
the politics of division and discrimination as we make decisions dealing with this scourge of
Covid 19. Sick leave pay should not be based upon “vaccination” status.

“Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D. is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.”

Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.: HALLELUJAH, IT’S OVER! 4 (1)

Posted on January 25, 2022 by One comment

by Dr. Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Well, look at this. It’s beginning to be cool again to be truthful if you are a physician or work in the medical profession. The New York Times, The Atlantic, Bill Maher, and other liberal outlets are now running articles saying the absurdity of masks, mandates, boosters and school lockdowns must end. For the past 2 years, if a physician said anything negative about vaccines, masks, Fauci, or lockdowns, there was a risk of everything from censorship to loss of employment to loss of medical licensure.

Consequently, physicians remained largely uninformed and misinformed or simply cowered in fear of opening their mouths to object to the medical tyranny on full display. It was very disappointing to observe physicians across the country relinquish their responsibility in the medical management of the individual patient and turn that management over to autocratic and totalitarian bureaucrats.

Meanwhile, back at the academic medical centers, those physicians were receiving their generous NIH research grant checks which kept them in line and signed up for the vaccine and mandate cause. I think you can also throw hospital administrators into that compromised group who have been on the receiving end of taxpayer largesse.

Physicians have also been complicit in denying early treatment strategies using repurposed safe and approved drugs such as hydroxychlorine and ivermectin that could have saved thousands of lives. But, of course, the availability of effective treatments would have taken away the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the genetic “vaccines”, and we couldn’t have that. So, the physicians readily accepted the CDC disparagement of these drugs and became active participants in the promotion and administration of genetic “vaccines” who still have the EUA.

But it wasn’t just physicians who were taken in by all this nonsense. Smart psychologists and bioethicists have been writing about and explaining mass formation psychosis which explains how social isolation and “free floating anxiety” (anxiety not tethered to a source which can be visualized, I.e. you are anxious but don’t know why) can lead to anger and blind following of “leaders” who explain the cause of the anxiety (Covid and the unvaccinated) and offer a solution (vaccines and mandates). Millions of people were manipulated by these psychodynamics which were exploited by cleverly evil political leaders. I won’t go into detail about mass formation, but if interested, I recommend listening to the Joe Rogan podcast interview of Dr. Robert Malone on Spotify.

As Pfizer and Moderna rolled out their drugs for mass inoculation, and rolled up billions of dollars in profits, it quickly became obvious the “vaccines” were to be ineffective and potentially dangerous as the adverse events reported in the CDC VAERS data exploded.

Physicians should have locked arms in solidarity and said not just NO but HELL NO.

Instead, the vast majority of physicians meekly climbed aboard the boxcars of the Fauci submission train and took the inoculations and then eagerly participated in promoting the “vaccines” to their patients who were given the experimental (that’s right, experimental) shots without any semblance of informed consent. So much for the Nuremberg Code, the Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Helsinki, general medical ethics, and numerous Constitutional rights. Who needs all that ethics stuff when we have Biden, Fauci, and the CDC?

So here we are one year later, and we are beginning to see the facade of this evil plandemic start to crumble. Apparently, the political totalitarians in Washington, the CDC, and leftist “journalists” in the liberal media are reading the polls and realize the majority of the American people have had enough and Democrats may lose their grip on what they value most – totalitarian power to tell the rest of us how we are to live our lives.

The CDC released data 2 days ago that proclaims natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity. Can you believe it? The CDC could have said that 2 years ago as any sophomore medical student knows natural immunity is the gold standard compared to vaccine immunity. In that CDC data, Covid recovered patients are 27 times less likely to be hospitalized and 6 times less likely to die than the vaccine only patient with no prior Covid infection.

It sounds like the elites have finally reached their inconvenienced threshold and want out of the propaganda. They want their kids back in school, they don’t want useless boosters ad infinitum, and they are tired of wearing their masks and having to show their “papers” to go anywhere. Have you noticed they are vacationing in Florida and then moving there or to Texas? However, we may be seeing the beginning of the new propaganda which rejects the previous Covid narrative and we will soon hear the pronouncement that “Hallelujah, the pandemic is over”, thanks to the Herculean efforts of Joe Biden who needs you to vote Democrat this November so he can continue succeeding for the American public.

Hang on to your wallet and your barf bag.

Jack C. Askins, M.D.: Patents, Players, and Plandemics 4.5 (2)

Posted on November 13, 2021 by Leave a comment

by Jack C. Askins, M.D.

We have all been on quite a ride during the past two years. Lockdowns, arresting people walking alone on a beach, disinfecting the surfaces of everything including boxes arriving from Amazon (“leave them on the porch in the sun for 2 days before bringing them inside”). Going to church or singing in the choir became “illegal”. High school kids forced to wear masks while outside running track. Outdoor church services disrupted by police. Daily White House press briefings, “case” numbers, hospitalization numbers, death numbers. Boarded up exercise gyms but wide-open Walmarts and Costcos.

As a physician, it is important to remain un-biased when reviewing medical literature and research papers. But during the past year, it seemed much of the medical data presented was biased. It is best to avoid becoming invested in “conspiracy” theories. Write a couple of papers suggesting one or another conspiracy, and you are immediately “canceled” as a tin-foil-hat-wearing nut case. But why is there such a frantic coercion coming from the government to put this mRNA substance into every American? Old, young, high-risk, low-risk, pregnant, natural immunity – it makes no difference. One size fits all. Everybody gets it. Don’t want it? Too bad, you’re going to get the shots anyway, or lose your job and livelihood. No going to a restaurant or flying on an airplane for you.

Doesn’t that make you stop and wonder what is going on? As we have descended further and further into this and have been besieged with so many conflicting and erroneous opinions coming from the CDC, the NIH, and the World Health Organization, I began widening my thoughts and reading about the history and origins of the corona viruses That led to stumbling into what has been written about the corona virus patents that have been filed dating back to 1999.

Patents? What does that have to do with Covid-19 and all that we have been through since January 2020? What do patents have to do with public health? It is understandable that if a drug company invests time, money, and research into developing and manufacturing a drug or vaccine for the treatment or prevention of a disease, they should be able to patent their discovery and receive a financial reward. The capitalist system encourages and promotes innovation that can enrich our lives.

But how can you patent a virus that occurs in nature? How can you patent a gene sequence on a portion of a virus? How can you own that? Is the answer that it represents “intellectual property” owned by the discoverer or, more specifically, the entity who altered that gene sequence? Well, the government apparently answered those questions in 35 US Code Section 101. That section defines what qualifies for a patent. Look it up; it’s easy to on-line search.

The Section states: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Now go to Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 2105 which deals with patent eligibility of living subject matter. Prior to 1980, it was widely believed that living subject matter was not eligible for patenting. However, in 1980, a Supreme Court decision (Diamond v. Chakrabarty) ruled on a dispute involving a genetically engineered bacterium, and stated “the question of whether an invention embraces living matter is irrelevant to the issue of patent eligibility. Living subject matter with markedly different characteristics from any found in nature, such as the claimed bacterium produced by genetic engineering, is not excluded from patent protection”. In other words, if the living matter has been synthetically or artificially altered from that which occurs naturally, the modification can be patented.

So, I guess that answers the question of how the players in the recent history of the Covid virus could patent a 3 gene sequence alteration in the s spike protein of the Covid virus and look forward to the development of the “vaccine” to “solve” the problem perhaps created by their genetic engineering. After all their hard work, they could then sit back and enjoy the resulting cash bonanza amplified by pandemic fear and vaccine mandates, all for a respiratory virus with an overall infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.2% (WHO data). I know, high risk groups (ie old folks) have a higher mortality rate when infected (CFR or case fatality rate). But the overall rate is estimated at 0.2% when you factor in the estimate of the denominator (total number of infections in the community).

So, who are the “players”? Apparently, there are a lot of players as there have been over 4,000 patents issued around the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Coronavirus. Opportunity attracts money, or rather, taxpayer money attracts opportunists. In 2005, a British Medical Journal article was critical of Dr. Tony Fauci and his deputy Clifford Lane when it was revealed the NIH had received $56 million in royalties for its discoveries. The NIH said that was put back into research (probably true) but taxpayer funded grants and research royalties pay salaries and bonuses and those can often be generous.

M-Cam International Innovation Risk Management is the world”s largest underwriter of intangible assets in 168 countries and has also monitored biological and chemical weapons treaty violations on behalf of the US government following the anthrax scare in September 2001. This company audited much of the 4,000 patents related to SARS-Covid and found that knowledge of the gene sequence of the s spike protein goes back to the year 2000.

Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) found the malleability of Coronavirus to be a potential candidate for HIV vaccines. Fauci holds patents on 4 products related to the HIV taxpayer funded research and the technology in those patents was utilized in the mRNA development. In 1999 he funded research at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. In 2002, the NIAID succeeded in developing an infectious replication-defective Coronavirus (it could infect but not replicate) that was specifically targeted for human lung epithelium. In other words, they made SARS and US Patent 7279327 was issued on 4/19/2002. Several months later, the first SARS outbreak occurred in Asia.

From an interview with Dr. David Martin (CEO M-Cam): So in 2002, US Patent 7279327 “clearly lays out in very specific gene sequencing, the fact that we knew that the ACE receptor, the ACE 2 binding domain, the s1 spike protein, and other elements of what we have come to know as this scourge pathogen, was not only engineered , but could be synthetically modified in the laboratory, using nothing more than gene sequencing technologies, taking computer code and turning it into a pathogen or an intermediate of the pathogen”.

In April, 2003, after the SARS outbreak in Asia, the CDC tried to file a patent for the entire gene sequence for the SARS coronavirus (Patent no. 7220852). This was a violation of 35 US Code Section 101, which states you cannot patent a naturally-occuring and unmodified substance. The CDC had also filed a patent to have the means to detect the virus using RT PCR testing. This was a cunning attempt to not only control the origin of the virus but also its detection, meaning the CDC would have the entirety of the science and the message control. The U.S. Patent Office rejected the patent on the gene sequence as unpatentable because it was 99.9% identical to a coronavirus that was already in the public domain. The CDC would not take no for an answer, and overode the patent examiner’s rejection and obtained the patent in 2007. There are lots of other players involved in the past 20 years leading up to the pandemic onslaught of the past 2 years. Besides the CDC there is the NIH, the NIAID, the FDA, and who knows how many other 3-letter agencies. Not to be left out of the financial action, 50 members of the US House and Senate own large stock positions in Pfizer worth tens of millions of dollars.

Dr. Ralph Baric of University of North Carolina deserves dubious mention as he is credited with much of the gain-of-function research that has taken place. Both he and Dr. Peter Daszak (head of the EcoHealth Alliance) have worked with the Wuhan Lab in China and funneled millions of dollars to that lab for research including gain-of-function which they and Dr. Fauci have subsequently lied about.

The full truth of the origin and the political exploitation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the global disaster it has caused is only beginning to be told. The paper trail of patents enlighten and provide some transparency to the story. It is now recognized the virus did not jump to humans from the Wuhan wet market and it appears it did not develop in any natural, biologic and evolutionary way. It is disturbing that the same government that has ownership and financial profit interest in the intellectual property of the Covid virus and the development and sale of the “vaccines”, is the same government that is now coercing, mandating, and enforcing (via OSHA) that all Americans receive the mRNA shots. What is the precedent for this? Is there not a conflict of interest problem in there somewhere?

If you can not get your head around all this, think of it this way. The federal government buys (confiscates) either part or all of Tesla from Elon Musk. The Feds then mandate that if you want to drive on the highways, you must purchase an electric vehicle from Tesla and that will be enforced by the Department of Transportation. This is all necessary and required because of the public health issue of climate change. If you don’t have a Tesla, you will be calling Uber, and they will be driving a Tesla. See how that works? The Feds and the various players get richer and you lose more of your liberty and freedom.

So what is the take-away from all this? If you are employed or invested and live in the virology research world, then patents on the gene sequences of viruses that occur in nature are all in a day’s work. But for all of us potential vaccine recipients out here, the filing of more than 4,000 patents on corona viruses is evidence there is a whole lot of money to be made when the researchers, the CDC, the NIH, the WHO and the FDA team up with Big Pharma and mandate we take into our bodies what they brewed up in their labs. Engineer it so we need boosters every 6 months and also mandate it for our children, and there will be bountiful income streams for years to come (Pfizer is already up $85 billion). Share some of that revenue with the politicians and the legal community, and this cabal of collaborators will be untouchable. Bring along the media and suppress, intimidate, and cancel any rational objections. The uninformed and the misinformed will become the “useful idiots” to further promote this malicious, self-serving nonsense. Submit, and take the shots. Or, as an alternative, you can just say no and tell them all to stick it somewhere else.

“Dr. Jack Askins is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.”

Bill Lockwood: Changing Definitions of a Vaccine? 4 (1)

Posted on November 5, 2021 by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

The Center for Disease Control has just altered its definition of a vaccine. According to newly released emails, the CDC was concerned that the previous definition did not apply to COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, the definition has been re-written right before our eyes, effective as of 1 September.

Formerly, the definition read, “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting a person from that disease.” The definition now reads this way, “A preparation that is used to stimulate a body’s immune response against diseases.”

The Epoch Times reports that Alycia Downs, lead health communication specialist for the agency, messaged a colleague on Aug. 19, saying that the CDC’s definition of a vaccine needs to be “updated” since “these definitions are outdated and are being used by some to say COVID-19 vaccines are not vaccines per CDC’s own definition.”

Two items need be quickly noted here, and we hope the truth is not lost on the American people.

First, the injections that the government has been forcing Americans to take have never really been vaccines. This is clear. What is before us by the CDC is a broad-based confession that what has been packaged and sold and forced on the American people under the label of “vaccine”, in fact, never really was that at all. Let all the goose-steppers to the government drum take notice.

More than this, the world-class doctors who have been sounding the alarm against the mandates and questioning the medical research behind the “vaccines” have been on target. Dr. Ryan Cole, a member of the Central District Board of Health and has studied skin pathology, said that the Pfizer injection “induces complex reprogramming of the innate immune system.”

Dr. Lee Merritt, former Navy physical, outspoken critic of the “vax mandates”, labeled the so-called “vaccines” as “genetic mutators.” The injection is a “viral-based genetic mutator.” She is joined by Dr. Anne McCloskey who referred to the “vaccines” as “experimental genetic therapy.”

These types of quotes could be added for pages. But the American populace has never really been exposed to the real science regarding the mandated injections because of a government monopoly on the information flow to the populace. This leads to the next point:

Second, it is apparent that the entire biomedical complex has now become heavily politicized. Socialists in charge of our government have been purposefully and willfully misdirecting the American people the entire time. It is less about science. It is less about medicine. It is less about people’s health. It is political.

And now that the government has intruded upon the biomedical complex, forcing injections, changing definitions, requiring in some cases “vaccination passports” without which one may not enter a business establishment—who can trust what the officials of our government tell us?

Perhaps the thousands of people who have been rushing over the cliff to “get vaccinated” will slow down to realize what is really happening here.

Jack C. Askins, M.D.: Vaccine Status or Immune Status? 4 (1)

Posted on November 3, 2021 by Leave a comment

by Jack C. Askins, M.D.

What is more important, vaccine status or immune status? Most people believe a vaccine is to establish immunity to a pathogen. Prior infection has resulted in immunity throughout human history. If a person is immune to a virus, clinical infection is avoided and replication and transmission of the virus is prevented. Simple question with a straightforward simple answer based upon known science. With the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the answer is not quite so simple. Natural immunity has always been the gold standard to which vaccine development has been compared….. until the past 18 months. There has been a full-court press to promote the mRNA inoculations, unlike anything I have ever seen. Government and big business have taken over what has always been the responsibility of known science, researchers, and physicians.

Prior infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus results in natural immunity. At least 75 years of virology and immunology has established the fact that natural immunity is at least as good and usually better than vaccine immunity; true in the past and true now. Natural immunity is broad, robust, and durable and usually will last years to a lifetime. Conversely, the mRNA vaccines appear to wane after 5-6 months. Even the CDC and the NIH agree they do not know how long the mRNA vaccines will provide “protection”. The CDC even went so far as to redefine a vaccine as a drug that provides “protection” but not immunity in the historic and traditional meaning of the word.

I compiled bullet point facts with references on natural immunity and that provided by the “vaccines”.

Bullet point facts concerning what is known about natural immunity:

• Natural immunity recognizes the full complement of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and thus provides protection against a broad array of variants. [1-4]
• Studies have demonstrated prolonged immunity with respect to memory T and B cells, bone marrow plasma cells, spike-specific neutralizing antibodies, and IgG+ memory B cells following naturally acquired immunity. [1-4]
• People who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 typically generate T cells that target at least 15-20 different fragments of coronavirus proteins. [12]
• The current vaccines result in the creation of antibodies against one specific virus spike protein programmed by the mRNA injection. [12]
• The spike protein on the virus is prone to mutate to escape the vaccine; the other myriad proteins targeted by T cells in natural immunity patients do not appear to be involved in the rapid mutation into the variants that are reducing vaccine effectiveness. [12]
• Multiple studies have confirmed that reinfections are rare in patients with natural immunity and are less severe than first-time infections. [5,6]
• Recent Israeli study included 187,549 unvaccinated persons with natural immunity: only 0.48% were reinfected; 0.02% were hospitalized; 0.008%were hospitalized with severe disease; only one died and he was over 80 years of age. [7]
• Based upon such evidence, many scientists and clinicians have concluded natural immunity and protection against COVID following recovery from infection is long-lasting. [8, 38]
• 1359 Cleveland Clinic employees previously infected, unvaccinated: no occurrence of re-infection in a 10 month follow-up from time of infection. [20]
• There is a growing body of literature supporting the conclusion that natural immunity not only confers robust, durable, and high-level protection against COVID-19, but also better than vaccine induced immunity. [13-17,19, 39]
• 23 patients who had recovered from SARS-CoV-1 still possess CD4 and CD8 T cells 17 years after infection during the 2003 epidemic. [9]
• A paper in Nature from 2008 found that 32 people born in 1915 or earlier still retained some level of immunity against the 1918 flu strain – 90 years later. [10]
• Robust durability of natural immunity is well established. Narrowly focused vaccine immunity appears to be waning at 6 months. [11]
• Natural immunity is the gold standard for effectiveness and durability to which researchers compare during vaccine development. [11]

Bullet point facts concerning what is known about the mRNA injections:

• The mRNA vaccines cause our cells to produce a specific Covid virus spike protein to which our immune system produces IgG and IgM humoral antibodies.
• IgA mucosal defense antibodies are not produced and durable T cell immunity is questionable following vaccination.
• Antibody Dependent Enhancement can increase the lethality of the Covid infection when non-neutralizing antibodies are produced by the vaccine and as the virus mutates to variants. [26]
• Although initial claims of Pfizer efficacy was 90-95%, that is down to 39% in the Israel study and 42% in the Mayo Clinic data. [27, 36]
• Approximately 30% of people who receive the mRNA shot may not develop adequate protection against the Covid-19 virus. [31]
• Duration of effectiveness appears to be 5-8 months.
• Necessity for boosters has been claimed by the CDC.
• Both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines currently appear to reduce the severity of illness and mortality rate but not prevent replication within the body or reduce viral nasal load and transmission (infectivity). [CDC declarations, multiple news reports]
• Vaccine immunity only targets the spike-protein of the original Wuhan variant, whereas natural immunity recognizes the full complement of SARS-CoV-2 proteins and thus provides protection against a greater array of variants. [Hooman Noorchasm noorchasm.medium.com]
• Canadian study reported 9/16/2021 the “incidence of myopericarditis overall was approximately 10 cases for every 10,000 inoculations with mRNA vaccine. [22]
• This year’s Covid surge numbers are larger than last year due to emergence of variants defeating the current mRNA vaccines.
• Israel and the UK were highly vaccinated and their recent hospitalizations and deaths have been mostly in the vaccinated population.
• UK Public Health data from 9/23/2021: Current Covid-19 deaths are over 3,000% higher than this time last year. 80% of those dying had the Covid vaccine. [21]
• Mass vaccination in the midst of a pandemic has not been recommended by virologists and immunologists due to the promotion of variants as the virus works to escape the vaccine and replicate within the vaccinated host.
• A recent large Japanese study predicts the virus will mutate itself to be completely immune to the vaccine and will likely become more virulent. [24]
• None of the vaccines in current application have been systematically or adequately tested for safety or efficacy in individuals who have previously been infected and recovered from SARS-CoV-2. In fact, Covid survivors have overall been largely excluded from Phase III vaccine clinical trials. [37]
• People with natural immunity are at increased risk for vaccine injury to include thrombosis and multisystem imflammatory syndrome. [25, 28, 29, 32]
• Mandated vaccination represents baseless DISCRIMINATION against already immune but unvaccinated persons being treated as inferior to the “fully vaccinated”. [30]

REFERENCES

[1] Jennifer M. Dan, et al., Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection, SCIENCE (Feb. 5, 2021) (finding that memory T and B and B cells were present up to eight months after infection, noting that “durable immunity against secondary COVID-19 disease is a possibility for most individuals”).

[2] Jackson S. Turner, et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans, NATURE (May 24, 2021) (study analyzing bone marrow plasma cells of recovered COVID-19 patients reported durable evidence of antibodies for at least 11 months after infection, describing “robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune response in humans”); Ewen Callaway, Had COVID? You’ll probably make antibodies for a lifetime, NATURE (May 26, 2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442- 9 (“The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting” and “people who recover from mild COVID-19 have bone-marrow cells that can churn out antibodies for decades”).

[3] Tyler J. Ripperger, et al., Orthogonal SARS-Cov-2 Serological Assays Enable Surveillance of Low-Prevalence Communities and Reveal Durable Humoral Immunity, 53 IMMUNITY, Issue 5, pp. 925-933 E4 (Nov. 17, 2020) (study finding that spike and neutralizing antibodies remained detectable 5-7 months after recovering from infection).

[4] Kristen W. Cohen, et al., Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells, MEDRXIV (Apr. 27, 2021), https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.19.21255739v1 (study of 254 recovered COVID patients over 8 months “found a predominant broad-based immune memory response” and “sustained IgG+ memory B cell response, which bodes well for rapid antibody response upon virus re-exposure.” “Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients”)

[5] Nabin K. Shrestha, et al., Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals, MEDRXIV (preprint), https://www.medrxiv.org/content
10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3. (“not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study “and concluded that those with natural immunity are “unlikely to benefit from covid-19 vaccination”).

[6] Laith J. Abu-Raddad, et al., SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in a cohort of 43,000 antibody-positive individuals followed for up to 35 weeks, MEDRXIV (Feb. 8, 2021), https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.15.21249731v2 (finding that of 129 reinfections from a cohort of 43,044, only one reinfection was severe, two were moderate, and none were critical or fatal); Victoria Jane Hall, et al., SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study, 397 LANCET: 1459- 69 (Apr. 9, 2021), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/ (finding “a 93% lower risk of COVID-19 symptomatic infection… [which] show[s] equal or higher protection from natural infection, both for symptomatic and asymptomatic infection”); Aidan T. Hanrah, et al., Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with protection against symptomatic reinfection, 82 JOURNAL OF INFECTION, Issue 4, E29-E30 (Apr. 1, 2021), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7832116/ (Apr. 1, 2021) (examined reinfection rates in a cohort of healthcare workers and found “no symptomatic reinfections” among those examined and that protection lasted for at least 6 months).

[7] Yair Goldberg, et al., Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2. vaccine protection: A three-month nationwide experience from Israel, MEDRXIV (pre-print), https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v1

[8] Chris Baranjuk, How long does covid-19 immunity last? 373 BMJ (2021)

[9] Nina Le Bert, SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell immunity in cases of COVID-19 and SARS, and uninfected control, NATURE (Aug. 2020).

[10] Xiaocong Yu, et al., Neutralizing antibodies derived form the B cells of 1918 influenze pandemic survivors, NATURE (2008)
[11] Heidi Ledford, Six months of COVID vaccines: what 1.7 billion doses hove taught scientists, 594 NATURE 164 (June 10, 2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01505-x (study notes that “Six months is not much time to collect data on how durable vaccine responses will be…. In the meantime some researchers are looking to natural immunity as a guide.”

[12] Tarke, A. et al. Cell Rep. Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100204 (2021).

[13] Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, Galit Perez et al. Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
medRxiv 2021.08.24.21262415; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

[14] Hall VJ, Foulkes S, Charlett A et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN). Lancet. 2021

[15]Harvey RA, Rassen JA, Kabelac CA, et al. Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection. JAMA Intern Med.

[16] Turner, J.S., Kim, W., Kalaidina, E. et al. SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans. Nature 2021

[17] Wang, Z., Yang, X., Zhong, J. et al. Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 generates T-cell memory in the absence of a detectable viral infection. Nat Commun 12, 1724 (2021).

[18] CDC.gov/mmWave/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm

[19] BMJ 2021; 374 doi: VACCINATING PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD COVID-19: WHY DOESN’T NATURAL IMMUNITY COUNT IN THE U.S.? BMJ 2021;374:n2101

[20] Nabin K. Shrestha, et al. NECESSITY OF COVID-19 VACCINATION IN PREVIOUSLY INFECTED INDIVIDUALS. MedRxiv June 19,2021. CLEVELAND CLINIC STUDY OF 1359 UNVAXXED AND PREVIOUSLY INFECTED EMPLOYEES REVEALING NO RE-INFECTION DURING 10 MOS FROM TIME OF INFECTION.

[21] theexpose.uk. Sept. 23, 2021. British publication reporting on data from British and Scotland Public Health

[22] Kafil, Lamacie, Chenier, et al. mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination and Development of CMR-confirmed Myopericarditis. MedRxiv September 16, 2021

[23] Gazit, Shlezinger, Perez, et al. COMPARING SARS-CoV-2 NATURAL IMMUNITY TO VACCINE-INDUCED IMMUNITY: REINFECTIONS VERSUS BREAKTHROUGH INFECTIONS August 24, 2021

[24] The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant is poised to acquire complete resistance to wild-type spike vaccines.
BioRxiv. August 23,2021. Very detailed Japanese study showing how the Covid virus is mutating toward complete resistance to current mRNA vaccines.

[25] Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome after SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Vaccination
Mark B. Salzman, Cheng-Wei Huang, Christopher M. O’Brien, Rhina D. Castill
Emerging Infectious Diseases • http://www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 27, No. 7, July 2021

[26] ANTIBODY-DEPENDENT ENHANNCEMENT SCIENCE 18 DEC. 2020. Good review of ADE, mechanism and history of its occurrence in other infections (Dengue fever, HIV, Ebola).

[27] COMPARISON OF TWO HIGHLY-EFFECTIVE mRNA VACCINES FOR COVID-19 DURING PERIODS OF ALPHA AND DELTA VARIANT PREVALENCE. medRxiv. August, 08, 2021
This is the Mayo Clinic study revealing the Pfizer vaccine effectiveness against the Delta variant at 42%.

[28] A LETTER OF WARNING TO THE PENNSBURY SCHOOL BOARD IN PENNSYLVANIA: MANDATING VACCINATION OF COVID-RECOVERED AND ALREADY IMMUNE PERSONS IS HAZARDOUS. Hooman Noorchasm noorchasm.medium.com

[29] Krammer, et al, ROBUST SPIKE ANTIBODY RESPONSES AND INCREASED REACTOGENICITY IN SEROPOSITIVE INDIVIDUALS AFTER A SINGLE DOSE OF SARS-COV-2 mRNA VACCINE,
medRx (Feb 1, 2021)

[30] WHY I BELIEVE SCOTUS SHOULD ADJUDICATE ZYWICKI VS. GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: ITS NOT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY, ITS ABOUT BASELESS DISCRIMINATION AND EXECUTIVE OVERREACH! Hooman Noorchasm noorchasm.medium.com

[31] A SEVERE ERROR IN FEDERAL PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY: ANTIBODY TESTING IS CRITICAL FOR DETERMINATION OF COVID-19 VACCINE NECESSITY AND EFFICACY IN EVERY AMERICAN.
Hooman Noorchasm noorchasm.medium.com

[32] Fabio Angell, SARS-CoV-2 VACCINES: LIGHTS AND SHADOWS, 88 European J. Of Internal Medicine 1-8 (2021)

[33] James f. Childress, et al., Public Health Ethics: Mapping the Terrain, 30(2) J. Law & Med. Ethics 170 (2002).

[34] N. Kojima, NK Shrestha, JD Klausner. A Systematic Review of the Protective Effect of Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection on Repeat Infection. medRxiv 8/27/21 Dept of Medicine, UCLA.
Findings: Weighted average risk reduction against reinfection was 90.4% and observed for up to 10 months.

[35] N. Kojima, A Roshani, M Brubeck, A Baca, JD Klausner. Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infection Among Previously Infected or Vaccinated Employees. Dept of Medicine, UCLA.
Findings: No difference in the infection incidence between vaccinated individuals and individuals with previous infection.

[36] newsnetwork.MayoClinic.org

[37] VACCINE INFORMATION FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS ABOUT COMIRNATY (COVID-19 VACCINE, mRNA) AND PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19). 9/22/2021 fda.gov55

[38] LASTING IMMUNITY FOUND AFTER RECOVERY FROM COVID-19. NIH January 26, 2021

[39] REINFECTION RATES AMONG PATIENTS WHO PREVIOUSLY TESTED POSITIVE FOR COVD-19: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY. Sheehan, Reddy, Rothberg CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES 3/15/2021
Six months after infection, protection against symptomatic disease exceeded 90%.

Jack C. Askins, M.D.: Back to the Future-1905 Mandates 4 (1)

Posted on October 29, 2021 by Leave a comment

by Jack C. Askins, M.D.

“History for most people starts the day they were born”. “If we do not know history, we are doomed to repeat it”. It can be amusing, but more often, frightening to observe our political, medical, and educational elites arrogantly and with unconstrained hubris making decisions for the rest of us that history predicts will not turn out well. These thoughts and quotes were coming to mind as I recently went back in time and reviewed the history of medication and vaccine development leading to FDA approvals. This review was inspired by all the chaos and rancor brought about by vaccine mandates and the pushback by all those who have so much to lose if they choose not to take the mRNA shot. It should not be overlooked that vaccine mandates in earlier times of our history have taken place with an FDA and CDC that seemed to be less political and more vigilant in regards to adverse events from administration of drugs. The threshold for stopping the production and marketing of a vaccine was very low if there was evidence for injury or death.

However, they did not always get it right and the history of safety pronouncements by health authorities, including the FDA and CDC, is not a sterling example of accuracy and truth. Thousands of lives have been lost and many more thousands adversely affected as a result of implicitly trusting the so-called health experts. Think of all the chemicals and substances that have been pronounced safe during the past 100 years: lead pipes, lead in paint, cigarettes, asbestos, glyphosates, heroin, thalidomide. The list goes on. The Yale School of Medicine did a study and found that approximately 30% of drugs approved between 2001 and 2010 were found to have major safety issues that were discovered at a median of 4.2 years after they were made widely available to patients. Problems were more common among drugs that were granted “accelerated approval”.

The CDC has published a report titled Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns and in it mentions contaminated polio vaccine led to 40,000 cases of polio caused by the vaccine. 200 children were left paralyzed and 10 died (“Cutter Incident”, 1955). In the 1970’s, swine flu vaccine had been administered to 40 million people when the mass vaccination was stopped as it became apparent 1 person for every 100,000 vaccinated developed Gillian-Barre Syndrome (GBS). They stopped the mass vaccination for swine flu due to a 0.001% increased risk for GBS. Compare that with the estimated risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in people under age 40 who received either the Moderna, Pfizer, or J&J shots.

In a recent Canadian study, the risk for myocarditis following mRNA shots was between 0.1% and 1.0%, i.e. between 100 and 1000 times higher than the swine flu GBS experience. Myocarditis in a young person is not a benign process! Why is the CDC frantically pushing for young Americans, including children, to be “vaccinated” with these mRNA shots when their risk of dying from the Covid virus is much less than the risk of the shots? Johnson and Johnson now acknowledges their “vaccine” can cause GBS but the drug has not been withdrawn and, in fact, they are promoting their booster.

How The Mandates Began

So this now brings us to the vaccine mandates and how all this got started. Early last year (2020), governor Newsom of California placed gathering restrictions on houses of worship. A lawsuit ensued (South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom) and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to enjoin (prohibit) California’s restrictions on churches in a 5-4 vote. No reasoning was given in the unsigned majority opinion. However, Justice John Roberts wrote a brief opinion that counseled deference (obedience) to the government (Newsom) during this public health crisis. Roberts cited the 1905 smallpox mandate case (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) once during that opinion piece. Soon, the South Bay concurrence (opinion piece) would become a “super-precedent” and in the following 6 months was cited in 140 cases. Now, it is difficult to read or understand the legal basis for vaccine mandates without understanding Jacobson.

The 1905 Supreme Court decision mandating smallpox vaccination (Jacobson v. Massachusetts) is often cited as the precedent to justify a federal mandate requiring Covid-19 vaccination. The ruling in that case was very narrow and stated that Mr. Jacobson could either take the smallpox vaccine or pay a $5.00 fine (equivalent to approximately $140.00 today). One cannot read about vaccine mandates, including the current intrusive Covid mandates, without citation back to the 1905 Supreme Court decision. Jacobson has been referred to and cited numerous times over the past 100 years in cases as diverse as forced saluting of the American flag, limiting religious exemptions, gun control, voting rights, abortion (Roe v. Wade) and restrictions on church gatherings. Jacobson is everywhere!

Perhaps most notorious and objectionable, Jacobson’s reasoning was the basis for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell, which allowed compulsory sterilization of intellectually impaired individuals. The 1905 Jacobson ruling is the only case cited as precedent in that opinion. In Buck v. Bell, Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court upheld Virginia’s eugenics law which mandated involuntary sterilization of cognitive challenged people referred to as “imbeciles”. The vote was 7-2. Holmes equated government-compelled sterilization to government-compelled vaccination. Holmes wrote: “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Thus, in this single sentence, Holmes expanded the scope of Jacobson beyond its narrow boundaries to support forcible intrusions onto body autonomy.

The current coercion for mandatory vaccination is equally as disgusting and objectionable as the Holmes ruling was for sterilization. In the current iteration of the legal interpretation of the 1905 Jacobson case, our government and corporate “leaders” have cast the unvaccinated as the “imbeciles” and rather than castration or cutting of Fallopian tubes, they have stipulated the dystopian choice of either loss of employment or involuntarily taking an “accelerated approval” novel drug. (As an aside, rather than financial devastation, some might prefer the Justice Holmes legal remedy.)

Jacobson reasoned that vaccine mandates are a part of the general power of states to protect public health, safety and morals, powers that were only limited (at that time) by a constitutional prohibition against “arbitrary” action. If a governmental enactment bore a “real and substantial” relationship, to use Jacobson’s terms, to the end it sought to achieve, the enactment (of the mandate) would survive review. This current mandate does not and will not achieve the ends sought by government. Those ends, as required by previous vaccines and mandates, are to stop infection and transmission of the virus and achieve herd immunity and ultimately eradication of the disease. That was true for smallpox, measles, mumps, and rubella as the effectiveness of those vaccines approach 100% in reaching those goals. The mRNA “vaccines” have not kept the promises of 90-95% effective made last December. Effectiveness of the Pfizer shots are down to 18-39% after 6 months in various studies. The Pfizer drug was “approved” faster than any prior vaccine and was based on 6 months of data rather than 2 years as was the trial design. There was no formal and customary FDA advisory committee meeting prior to approval and the control group was eliminated by offering the shots to the control group participants.

Furthermore, in the Jacobson court ruling, Justice Harlan recognized that a vaccine mandate could not be enacted based on pretextual motivations and the mandate could not be enforced in an arbitrary fashion against particular persons. In regards to the “pretextual motivations,” Harlan explained the courts would need to disallow the mandate if the effect of the mandate did not protect the public health. It is now widely known as a result of observational data, clinical trials, and admission by the CDC that the mRNA shots do not prevent infection or transmission of the Covid-19 virus. The pretext for the Covid mandate is not fulfilled by the means to achieve the ends. The proponents of these inoculations are only left with advocating for a reduced severity of disease and perhaps less death. But even that is debatable. Israel is 80% “vaccinated” with Pfizer and in September, 2021, they had 130% more cases and 56% more deaths than they had the previous year (2020). Reducing severity of disease without preventing infection or transmission of the virus fits the definition of a treatment and not the historical definition of a vaccine.

Regarding the “arbitrary” fashion of applying the mandate against particular persons, Justice Harlan wrote: the enforcement power of the state cannot be “exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner.” Hospital workers are “particular persons” and enforcement of the mandate against them will not protect the public health or the public safety. As the CEO of United Regional Hospital (Wichita Falls, TX) stated in her mandate announcement video, there has been no confirmed case of hospital staff infecting a patient with Covid-19 since the start of the pandemic last year. Paradoxically, the mandate may well result in worsening of public health and public safety due to the loss of well-trained and experienced ER and critical care hospital staff who may resign or be fired due to refusing the mRNA injections. The hospital has already been replacing nurses and other staff with out-of-town “travelers” – expensive replacements, often less experienced and less skilled with no connection to our community. All of this has been imposed upon nursing and other staff shortages that existed prior to the pandemic. Thus, enforcing the mandate against these employees should be considered arbitrary and unreasonable.

But mandating that a person take a vaccine is only half of the issue. The other half is what happens if a person refuses the vaccine and what alternatives are there to the vaccine? Mr. Jacobson had to pay a $5.00 fine. In the case of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination mandates, the CDC allows diagnostic testing for antibodies to the virus (IgG) or proof of prior infection as an alternative to vaccination (CDC.gov, 2013). Prior to the 2020 politicization of the CDC, natural immunity was recognized for the immunity gold standard that it represents. In the Jacobson majority opinion, Justice John Marshal Harlan wrote “so long as there was a reasonable fit” between the measure adopted, and the government’s interest to promote public health, the law was valid. A choice between a coerced unconventional and poorly effective “vaccination” or the loss of one’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not appear to be a “reasonable fit”. There is no proportionality in the legal remedy being considered. By the standard expressed in the often quoted Jacobson case, the current vaccine mandate would not be held valid.

During the past 100 years, the Jacobson ruling has been tortured and contorted and applied to many diverse legal conflicts, the net result of which is to justify an expanded view of federal and state government power. It has been described as an “escape hatch” from the Constitution. During 2020 and 2021 we have seen and experienced the effect of Jacobson’s assault (and its contemporary amplification by Justice Roberts) upon our Constitutional rights and protections in the realm of lockdowns, mandates, masks, church gatherings and other freedoms of association. With the replacement of Justice Ginsburg with Justice Barrett on the Supreme Court last year, we appear to be returning to a more Constitutional interpretation of the Free Exercise and Due Process laws (Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo). Federal and state governments, local health departments, corporate and physician leadership will hopefully soon understand that the occasion of a pandemic or other health crisis does not suspend Constitutional rights, freedoms, and liberties.

Jack C. Askins, M.D.: SOMETHING ISN’T RIGHT 4.5 (2)

Posted on October 27, 2021 by Leave a comment

by Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Something isn’t right in this entire vaccinated vs unvaccinated argument and division taking place in our country. On one side, the proponents of vaccination are labeling the unvaccinated as the cause of the current surge in the Covid case numbers (“a pandemic of the unvaccinated”). Overflowing hospitals and Covid deaths are all the fault of the unvaccinated, so the story goes. President Biden says his “patience is wearing thin”. Vaccines will be mandated and private businesses and government will be the enforcers. Life will be difficult for the unvaccinated. Some have said the unvaxxed should not be treated in hospitals if they become ill.

On the other side, the unvaccinated state vaccines and mandates are about freedom to choose and liberty; “my body, my choice”. They point to an overall Covid survival rate of 99% and cite data regarding complications and side effects from the vaccines. They call attention to how the CDC recently re-defined a vaccine from providing “immunity” to providing “protection”.
They also have concerns about the unique mRNA mechanism of action and how the approval process was incomplete and abbreviated. “If the vaccines work, why aren’t they working?”

For the sake of national unity and promoting confidence in this new technology of the mRNA shots, this should have already been sorted out by the vaccine developers and researchers. Apparently, animal studies were not done and the phase 3 trials were prematurely “completed” last December and the control group offered the mRNA shot. Completion of phase 3 trials was originally scheduled for 2023. The politicians in charge, the CDC, and the NIH have hardened their recommendations into mandates, threats, and penalties which includes loss of employment and financial destruction. Federal regulatory agencies will be turned loose on the unvaxxed.

But all of this confusion and division and rancor and hate could be mostly avoided by truthfully answering one question. One question backed up by 75 years of immunology and virology science and research. The same immunology and virology we all studied in college and medical school and have called upon to diagnose and treat patients in our practices. The same immunology and virology being ignored by the politicians and the armchair doctors at the CDC.

The one important question is “What is more important, vaccine status or immune status?” It is a very simple and obvious question but the fact it is not being asked or explained goes to the issue of honesty and transparency. If a vaccine provides immunity, then the targeted virus will not infect or replicate within a person and thus not be spread to others.

The CDC has admitted the mRNA vaccines do not provide immunity but rather “protection” against serious infection and death. Dr. Fauci has recently stated that in Covid infected patients, nasal viral loads available for transmission to others are similar between the unvaccinated with no prior infection and the vaccinated. Based on this, one could argue the mRNA shots are a “therapy” and not a “vaccine”. This “therapy” may not be all that effective – Israel hospitals have been filled up with sick vaccinated patients and 2/3 of recent Covid deaths in the UK have been in the vaccinated. In both countries, most of the population have been vaccinated and that did not stop the Delta variant surge. Pfizer “effectiveness” is calculated to be down to 39% in the Israeli data and 42% in a Mayo Clinic study.

But here is the salient point about vaccine status vs. immune status: the issue of natural immunity. Natural immunity occurs following an infection with a viral pathogen. Prior to the politics of 2020 and 2021, natural immunity was widely recognized as the most robust and broad immunity one could have. Natural immunity produces mucosal IgA antibodies (stops the infection at the mucosal barrier – nose, mouth, eyes). If the pathogen makes it past the mucosal barrier, internal B cells produce humoral antibodies (IgG and IgM) and cellular immunity is initiated with CD4 and CD8 T cells. The CD4 cells coordinate an immune response and the CD8 T cells are the “killer” cells and attack and destroy cells in our body which have been infected with the virus. Your own cells are destroyed to prevent the virus from using them to make more copies of itself.

And here is the really interesting and important part: after a period of time the B and T cells can transition into a “sentry” mode lasting years to perhaps a lifetime and re-activate if challenged by the virus. Statements that natural immunity is only of a few months duration are ignorant, biased nonsense.

The mRNA shots turn a person’s cells into viral spike protein factories that provoke the immune system to produce humoral antibodies to the specific spike protein encoded by the mRNA. There are no mucosal barrier IgM antibodies produced and the data on CD4 and CD8 T cells is murky at best. One would think all this would have been studied and known in detail prior to unleashing the mRNA injections on an uninformed world. Consequently, we are now having surging Delta variant infections, the appearance of the Mu variant, recommendations for 3rd and 4th and beyond boosters, and thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries attributed to the mRNA shots in our CDC VAERS data and the European monitoring data.

Now that we know all of this, why are we now dividing the country and creating social and financial chaos with vaccine mandates? The “unvaccinated” are not a monolithic group but rather comprised of those who were previously infected and now have natural immunity and those who are infection-naive (no prior SARS Cov 2 infection). Efforts at vaccine encouragement (not mandates) should be directed at the infection-naive who are at risk and have co-morbidities. There now is evidence the mRNA shot, when given to Covid survivors with natural immunity, places them at a several times higher risk for vaccine injury and death. Arterial and venous thrombosis and cytokine storms have been observed. To not recognize those with natural immunity and proceed with discrimination and penalties against them does not acknowledge the science and is illogical, unethical, and immoral.

Hospitals are making the argument that taking the mRNA shot is necessary to prevent over-burdening hospitals with Covid patients. The Israel and UK data mentioned above argue against that and those countries may be a prequel to what is beginning to happen in the U.S. However, educating and encouraging at-risk individuals within the community to take the Pfizer or Moderna shots may lessen the severity of illness presenting to the hospital.

In addition, perhaps hospital administrators and medical staffs could provide bold leadership rather than dutifully following the same CDC “guidance”. There are published studies and protocols from experienced academic and frontline physicians who have demonstrated 85% decrease in hospitalizations and death utilizing re-purposed medications per protocol (see Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance; America’s Frontline Doctors). What if it were only a 25-30% decrease in hospitalizations? Would that not be worthwhile (what do we have to lose)? Why not do an informal observational study with these protocols, including informed consent, on perhaps 25% of Covid patients presenting to the hospital? Expand the percentage if the results are favorable. Following CDC “guidance”, hospitals have been on defense for the past 21 months. How has that been working out? Why not go on offense and try a different therapeutic approach which appears to benefit patients? What do we have to lose?

Reasons given for not trying these protocols have included the drugs are not FDA approved for Covid purposes and there is no CDC approval. Drugs are frequently given “off label” if in the best interest of the patient. As far as CDC protocol “approval”, the CDC provides “guidance” but does not have regulatory power to deny physicians acting in the best interest of a sick patient (“right to try”). In regards to “first do no harm”, the antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs
re-purposed in these protocols have been given millions of times around the world with virtually no significant complications (“what do we have to lose?”).

Hospitals around the country are also mandating mRNA shots for all their employees and staff.
The uninformed and misinformed might assume that is for the protection of the patients. However, there is no evidence health care workers have been a significant source for Covid spread within a hospital. The CEO at a local hospital recently stated there has been no confirmed case of staff infecting a patient during this pandemic. Temperature assessment and early self-quarantine seems to have been effective.

Also, a high percentage of health care workers are Covid-recovered and have natural immunity. A study by the Cleveland Clinic this year revealed that in approximately 1350 health care workers within the Cleveland Clinic system who had prior infection and no vaccination, there was not a single incidence of SARS-CoV-2 re-infection in a 10 month follow-up. The CDC recently analyzed blood from blood banks and calculated that 83% of the country have antibodies to the Covid virus from either the mRNA shots or from natural immunity. Those with only natural immunity comprised approximately 25% of the total in this study. What happened to the concept of herd immunity?

Mandating mRNA injections in hospital employees and staff will obviously not reduce the number of sick patients presenting to a hospital for diagnosis and treatment. Some within the hospital think it is a symbolic and manipulative gesture aimed at the community and will influence the unvaxxed to obtain the mRNA shot. However, polls have suggested this will be counter-productive as both vaxxed and unvaxxed people in communities realize this mandate will not reduce the surge of Covid patients presenting to a hospital. It will, however, reduce the availability of staff to care for them.

The past 21 months have been a difficult and destructive assault on most of our society but politicians have exploited it for their political benefit. To not recognize that is naive. Most would agree this virus and the global response to it is very fluid and dynamic. What was thought to be true 6 months ago is not true now, and 6 months (or 3 or 1) months from now, it will probably evolve into something else. In the midst of all this dynamic change, at a very fundamental level it does not seem ethical or moral to mandate this drug be injected into our bodies. That precedent and the effects of the drug will be forever; the virus probably will not.

Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Note:
1. This paper is not written as an anti-vaccine statement and should not be taken as such. High-risk people who have not been previously infected with the Covid virus should be encouraged (not mandated) to take the mRNA shot as it may reduce the severity of an infection and help avoid death, if infected. Mandates and not recognizing the immune status of those previously infected are issues contributing to the mistrust and division within our country. A very large portion of this nation feels like they have been enrolled into a vast experiment involving masks, vaccines, and mandates without their informed consent. Medical science is strongest and innovation occurs when diversity of opinion and criticism are encouraged. That is why Morbidity & Mortality conferences and peer review of journal articles are the historical norm within the practice of medicine. Critical analysis and alternative thought and opinion are now being persecuted and silenced. No matter how one feels about vaccines and mandates and alternative treatments, the silencing and persecution of critical thought and opinion will strangle medical innovation and further divide our country.

2. This was written in a simplistic and conversational style as one would have when speaking with a patient or a poorly informed physician colleague. Considerable technical detail was excluded and references were not formally listed as this obviously is not intended for submission to a journal. The Israel and UK data are easily found with an on-line search and the original papers and articles are available. The same is true of the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic studies and statements by Dr. Fauci and Rochelle Walensky and the CDC.

Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Jack C. Askins, M.D.: SO HOW IS YOUR CONFIRMATION BIAS? 4 (1)

Posted on October 20, 2021 by Leave a comment

by Jack C. Askins, M.D.

Confirmation bias. We all have it, you know. It is part of the human condition. You can deny it but then that would be confirming your bias. And bias isn’t always a bad thing. Absence of bias, if it were to mean absence of opinion, would reveal a colorless and uninteresting human being. Opinions, and our dedication to them, contribute to our diversity, intellect, wit, and appeal. It is when bias in the form of opinion is used by those in positions of leadership and authority to silence alternative opinion (and bias), that it becomes tyranny and fascism when administered. The Founding Fathers of this country had that figured out and it is why we have freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This is the definition of confirmation bias that applies to the world of medicine and science:

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

In the course of doing literature research on the Covid virus and the pandemic, it became apparent that over the past 18 months, and particularly during 2021, confirmation bias was alive and well, stronger than ever, and being exploited by political leadership and the media to drive their agenda and change our culture. We were no longer having objective discussions on the medical science involving diagnosis and treatments of this virus. Diversity of opinion was no longer being tolerated.

When language is controlled by those with a bias to be confirmed, it can be used to silence and bully those with an opposing opinion. Words and concepts and their historical meanings can be gradually changed to represent hate, ignorance, or “misinformation”.

Dr. Mark McDonald is a prominent California psychiatrist who recently had the following quote that deals with the use of language to confirm the bias of those favoring mandated vaccines and to denigrate those who favor medical and body autonomy: “Pandemic of the unvaccinated” has emerged as an expression of propaganda meant to provoke anger toward those who exercise medical choice in deferring or refusing the experimental vaccine. It is meant to isolate, shame, and humiliate anyone who will not agree to surrender medical autonomy to the state. It intentionally divides Americans against one another while simultaneously distracting attention from the medical reality of poor vaccine efficacy and vaccine harm. The expression is devoid of scientific meaning but full of coercive psychological power. It must be challenged.

People have concerns about the mRNA shots and cite as the basis for their concerns it’s new technology never before used to create a vaccine, or the abbreviated approval process and lack of long term complications and outcome data, or the frantic coercion being used to promote and mandate its acceptance. There has been no acknowledgement of the people with natural immunity which is known to be better than vaccine immunity. Instead of a respectful dialogue that provides answers to their concerns, the mRNA hesitant are denigrated and turned into dangerous pariahs out to infect and harm the vaccinated. The word “antivaxxers” is now being used to refer to people who have these concerns.

So what is driving all of this mandate madness as it comes from hospital administrators and their physician advisors? It probably is not concern for public health as it has been shown that injecting hospital workers with these experimental drugs will not reduce Covid in the community. Nor has there been data to suggest hospital staff infecting patients. Follow the money is always a high percentage bet. Apparently the Feds pay more for a Covid diagnosis. We have all heard about the patient who was said to have died from Covid 19 when it was actually the gunshot wound to the head that caused his demise. Set those cycle thresholds high enough on the PCR machines and most anyone can be Covid positive. Follow the money.

Now, the Feds have gone full unconstitutional and tied hospital Medicare reimbursement to compliance with the “vaccine” mandates. If this stands, what will be mandated next? Abortions required to be done in all hospital facilities? How about gender re-assignment surgery on kids? Perhaps without parental consent. Medicare is due to run out of money soon. Maybe they will mandate no pacemakers or hip replacements, or dialysis after age 70. There is now a report of a woman in Colorado who has been denied consideration for a renal transplant because she is not “vaccinated” Use your imagination; there are no limits anymore. If they can require all citizens to be enrolled in an experimental drug trial without informed consent, they can do anything they want. This isn’t about public health.

But what of the physicians? Physicians do not appear to be profiting from this pandemic and the mRNA shots unless they bought stock in Pfizer or Moderna.

No, uninformed and misinformed probably explains most of the physician collaborators. There may be a few CDC zealots who believe everything that Dr. Fauci says as gospel, perhaps not realizing the CDC, the NIH, and perhaps the FDA have been compromised and politicized. Name one thing the CDC has been right about the past 21 months. As for the FDA, they abandoned all historical benchmarks and norms to “approve” this drug. Now that “leadership” physicians (local and national) have made their decisions, they seem not to be bothered by facts and new data discrediting this “vaccine” fiasco. That’s called confirmation bias.

For the hospital administrators and physicians who may read this piece, here is a short psychological test to determine how your confirmation bias is doing. If you become angry upon reading this, and ignore or discount its messages, you can be assured that deep part of your brain from which arise anger, hubris, arrogance, and confirmation bias is intact and functioning full strength. If however, you are motivated to do more reading and not just that which supports your current positions on vaccines and mandates, then you have taken a big step towards controlling and overcoming these base emotions. In either case, show some spine and do something positive for your fellow hospital workers, your colleagues, your community, the hospital, freedom and liberty and stop this evil and misguided mandate.

“Dr. Jack Askins is a cardiologist in Wichita Falls, TX. This is the first article in a series of four he has authored that we intend to publish here. His reasoned scientific voice needs to be heard during these times as the COVID-19 Vaccines have become politicized through government mandates. We are encouraged by his boldness and expertise that he brings to the subject.”

« Older Entries