“A bun in the toaster oven,” a woman exclaims off-camera, handing an ultrasound image to family members who erupt into tearful emotion over the news. “Oh my God!”
The touching baby announcement video then gets down to business as text appears on the screen amidst the ongoing celebration, suggesting the best way to stay alive for this joyous birth is by becoming vaccinated against COVID-19. “Why will you get vaccinated? … Because some people you just want to meet in person.”
It closes with the tagline: “Science can make this possible. Only you can make it real.”
The evocative 2021 television spot was funded by Pfizer just as the pharmaceutical giant was rolling out its COVID-19 vaccine. The spot may have seemed, for Americans, like any other pharmaceutical advertisement. But there was something missing. The ad, and many others like it financed by vaccine manufacturers, did not include any of the typical disclaimers about risks associated with vaccines, nor any disclosures that they had not yet received Food and Drug Administration approval.
Although Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies were operating under a special Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) that allowed them to sell their Covid vaccines without going through the traditional testing and approval process, that authorisation explicitly required vaccine ads to include a prominent warning that the medicines had not been fully tested for potential risks.
A RealClearInvestigations review of ads that ran tens of thousands of times during the pandemic found that the major vaccine companies routinely exploited a regulatory loophole to skirt those marketing rules while embarking on massive paid media campaigns to sell the COVID-19 vaccines. By casting their spots as public service announcements – promoting the idea that people should get vaccinated, rather than a company’s specific product – drug companies claimed the disclosure requirements did not apply.
As a result, the required disclosure about the vaccine operating under emergency approval rarely appeared in any of the ads, even as many employers, including the federal Government, required tens of millions of Americans to get vaccinated.
“It’s an advertising laundering operation,” said Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethicist and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre. The ads “violate the spirit of the EUA, if not the letter of the law”.
The ad blitz was plastered across television and social media and later celebrated by drug industry insiders as one of the most effective pharmaceutical outreach campaigns of all time. The flood of ads not only promoted Pfizer and Moderna’s products but helped influence public opinion, transforming an industry once viewed as driven by greed into altruistic heroes stepping up to solve a health crisis with no ulterior motives.
WPP, the advertising conglomerate that crafted Pfizer’s “Science Will Win” ad campaign during the pandemic, was clear about the motivation when speaking to a trade outlet. “‘Science Will Win’ campaign was about changing the perception that pharmaceutical companies profited from health and from sickness,” Claire Gillis, the International Chief Executive Officer of WPP Health Practice, boasted to the Drum, a marketing industry outlet.
Yet the role of the COVID-19 vaccine ads, which widely shaped public opinion and galvanised support for the drug industry, remains largely unexplored. Critics say it is another example of rules for pharmaceutical companies that were tossed to the wayside as maximalist policies swept through society. Online censorship, vaccination mandates, school closings, general lockdowns and other draconian restrictions were imposed on citizens, while drug companies poised to reap unprecedented multi-billion dollar profits were given unusual and largely unscrutinised leeway.
The attorneys general of Texas and Kansas have accused Pfizer of widely misleading the public on the effectiveness of its vaccine. Both states contend that the company violated rules that bar pharmaceutical firms from deceptive messaging, though their lawsuits largely focus on statements by company officials. Pfizer has denied that it misrepresented the vaccine and said in court documents that it is “immune” from claims since the company was acting under authorisation from the federal Government.
These so-called “direct-to-consumer” drug ads are a contentious area of public health. The United States and New Zealand are the only countries that permit such ads. A study from the Government Accountability Office found that from 2016 through 2018, drug manufacturers spent $17.8 billion on direct-to-consumer ads for just 553 drugs, almost all of which were brand name. Experts have sharply criticised the ads for misleading patients and encouraging many to seek out medications that are not clinically appropriate.
The tsunami of drug ads began in 1997 when Congress lifted previous restrictions and allowed pharmaceutical ads as long as they contained a summary of the risks of each product at the end of the commercial. This has given many ads a whiplash quality, as sunny visions of a medicine’s benefits are followed by a parade of horribles regarding common side-effects ranging from hallucinations and nausea to strokes, suicidal ideation and even heart attacks.
However, Covid ads from Pfizer that ran nationally during the early rollout of the vaccine contained no basic disclosure, despite the fact they were marketing a drug that had enhanced disclosure requirements. The risks around myocarditis and other heart issues were not acknowledged in spots, nor were the relative lack of benefits for young, healthy individuals with prior infection immunity.
The most glaring omission, however, was the lack of disclosure that the vaccines had not yet received FDA approval. Under the emergency approval to Pfizer and Moderna, issued in December 2020, both pharmaceutical firms were required to remind viewers of the EUA status of the vaccines in any paid media. It stated that “all descriptive printed matter, advertising and promotional material” relating to the vaccine must “clearly and conspicuously” state that “this product has not been approved or licensed by FDA” and was authorised only under the emergency use declaration.
Those disclosures were almost nowhere to be found in countless advertisements that appeared over the ensuing months of the pandemic, as Americans faced widespread coercion to receive the shot.
In a response to a request for comment, a Pfizer spokesperson claimed that the ads were “unbranded campaigns”, and thus no disclosures were required. Moderna provided a similar explanation. “As this was a non-branded disease education campaign EUA disclosures were neither necessary nor appropriate,” said a company spokesperson.
In other words, although both vaccine firms poured vast resources into marketing and advertising the vaccine, they did not mention the official brand names – Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s SpikeVax – and therefore, under this interpretation of the rules, neither the routine direct-to-consumer disclosures nor the EUA disclosures applied.
That justification strikes some medical ethics experts as pure sophistry.
“Since the Covid vaccines were approved under EUA, even unbranded ads should have carried the required warning,” noted Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and infectious disease epidemiologist, and critic of many vaccine policies.
The intent of the ads was clear to the marketing firms that managed them. WPP’s Gillis, in her remarks to the Drum, said that elevating the brand as part of the vaccine ads was very much the point. “Go to the doctor and ask for ‘Pfizer vaccine’,” she said, discussing the strategy.
Dini von Mueffling, a New York communications specialist who assisted with many of the Pfizer ads, later discussed the effort with Contagious, another marketing industry publication. The “many legal regulations”, said von Mueffling, “I think ultimately stymie creativity”. But, she added, “we worked within those regulations and were still able to be very creative, which was great”.
Pfizer ran many iterations of its “unbranded” COVID-19 vaccine campaign. The ‘Because of This’ ad campaign featured real people rather than actors answering the question of why they will get vaccinated. “Because this year she turns one, and I’m 74,” the tagline of one Pfizer-sponsored ad read. Another, titled ‘Hug’, showed two women clutching each other, weeping. “Because you can’t hug a computer screen. Why will you get vaccinated?” the text of the ad asked, in a nod to the lockdown orders.
Moderna, while operating under the EUA, launched a ‘Make it Yours’ campaign to encourage the use of its vaccine. The company brought on partnerships with the Seattle Seahawks and Boston Red Sox. One of the animated ads featured former Seahawks star Jordan Babineaux, who instructed viewers to “always protect the team” and get vaccinated. “With the vaccines here to help millions, we can take steps towards life as we knew it,” narrated Babineaux.
In other cases, third-party groups funded by Pfizer and Moderna blanketed viewers with ads urging vaccination without any disclaimers.
Immunise Nevada, a nonprofit that popped up during the pandemic and then disappeared, ran Facebook ads with a doctor imploring viewers to “get vaccinated”. GovVax, another group funded by vaccine industry sources, sponsored social media ads touting vaccines as “free, safe and effective”. The National Hispanic Medical Association, backed by grants from the vaccine pharmaceutical industry, similarly sponsored a “Get Vaccinated” social media campaign.
Pfizer also tapped the largely unregulated world of influencer marketing. In one instance, the company retained the public relations firm Real Chemistry and an influencer named Darrion Nguyen, who also goes by @Lab_Shenanigans, to create a series of comedic skits mocking vaccine misinformation. The series, titled ‘I Heard It on the Internet’, mocked critics of vaccine policy as fools who did not follow the science.
Nguyen, who identified himself as a “real life scientist”, produced videos debunking claims such as “vaccines don’t work with Omicron variants” and “vaccines can make you magnetic”. The latter was certainly not true, but the former was up for debate. Research from Israel showed that the Pfizer boosters provided as little as 30% efficacy against the Omicron wave – and other studies suggested at the time that natural immunity provided as much as 87.8% efficacy against the Omicron variant. Those facts were not included in the Pfizer-funded TikTok series.
The star of the Pfizer social media ads, however, later got into his own misinformation scandal. Earlier this year, Baylor College of Medicine in Texas retracted research authored in part by Nguyen, citing falsified data and fabricated lab results. Nguyen, in response to the news, cited “pressure to meet expectations”.
While few news outlets covered Moderna or Pfizer’s ad campaign at the time, both companies were widely celebrated by marketing professionals for the success of the blitz.
YouGov called Pfizer’s ads the most successful of 2020, while Medical Marketing and Media, an industry group, awarded Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson for their innovative marketing efforts.
Pfizer went so far as to submit a detailed presentation touting the impact of its social media and marketing strategy during the pandemic to the ‘Shorty Awards’, another industry competition for DTC ads and drug marketing innovation. The video montage of the company’s success shows a series of public relations victories for the industry, including a social media pledge to ensure a safe and effective vaccine, which won Pfizer “positive coverage from almost every top tier [news] outlet”, including the New York Times and Bloomberg.
The success in selling the public was buoyed by Government support. The United States provided at least $31.9 billion in funds for the development, purchasing and production of the mRNA vaccines, money that padded record profits. Pfizer generated some $37 billion in revenue from the vaccine in 2021, making it one of the most lucrative drug product launches of all time. Moderna, meanwhile, minted four new billionaires as the company’s stock skyrocketed.
Kheriaty, the bioethicist, is an opponent of all direct-to-consumer ads. But he noted that the vaccine industry campaign appeared particularly pernicious, as Government and media voices largely echoed every marketing claim of the vaccine industry with little pushback, while the tens of millions of dollars of pharmaceutical ads provided an inherent conflict of interest for the news programmes covering the pandemic.
“You’re probably just at the tip of the iceberg in terms of tracing the money flow,” Kheriaty sighed.
Related Reporting:
— “Pfizer Quietly Financed Groups Lobbying for Covid Vaccine Mandates“
— “FBI Surveillance Contractor Probed Anti-Vaccine Mandate Activists“
— “Moderna Surveillance Operation Targeted Independent Media Voices“
This investigation was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and on Lee Fang’s Substack.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Good spot!
I think we all know the entire thing is based on false pretence, lies and deceit.
I doubt this will be reported, burried under the heading ‘conspiracy’ or ‘fake news’, ‘fact checked’ by Snopes and debunked.
Still, I once heard of an elephant that could fly so, you never know.
However I have just seen the Tele out independent sage as leftie nuts and apparently ministers have voted against injecting kids with experimental drugs!
No, don’t hope, it’s a trap, must resist positivity!!
Until I see bozo eat an ID card (or an iPhone) I’m going to remain heavily sceptical I think.
On the subject of kids, the BBC (Radio 5) News this morning reported the story but followed it with an impassioned defence of the vaccination of children by a Canadian official. (The Canadians have already started vaccinating children, so he was hardly likely to cast doubt on his own policies.) A more intelligent line for BBC to take would have been to ask whether the UK’s scientists’ hesitancy might give the Canadians cause for concern. Instead, and entirely predictably, the BBC allowed him to trot out the usual propaganda that the risk of damaging the children was justified by the need to protect the rest of the population.
The Cowardly Lion knows the likely electoral consequences if news gets out that even one healthy child has been severely disabled or died from having an unnecessary “jab.”
The plan is for everyone to be jabbed so that there is no group to compare with when vaccine damages start occurring which will allow them to claim it’s not related to the jab.
The plan is momentarily derailed with the announcement that children will generally not get it, but that will change shortly. Just watch.
‘ the BBC allowed him to trot out the usual propaganda that the risk of damaging the children was justified by the need to protect the rest of the population.’
The lie that has been promoted by the MSM and governments, flying in the face of what even the jab manufacturers state, that the jab doesn’t stop people catching or transmitting the virus.
Dumbo wasn’t it? Coincidentally a name that could be applied to others…
Another story that should make headlines tomorrow but probably won’t.
False pretence is far and wide
Health Ranger exposes planned takedown of America, ending in martial law, halted elections and Holocaust-level mass extermination via spike protein injections
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-16-health-ranger-exposes-planned-takedown-of-america-ending-in-military-martial-law.html
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Home Schooling – Ex-Primary School Teacher on Resistance GB YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5oS2ejye0
https://www.hopesussex.co.uk/our-mission
The CDC now 11,000 deaths.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-deaths-injuries-reported-cdc-covid-vaccines-moderna-pregnant-women/
The actual (uncensored numbers) may be as high as 50,000:
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/06/24/dr-peter-mccullough-reveals-the-covid-19-vaccines-are-bioweapons-and-a-cdc-whistle-blower-has-confirmed-50000-americans-have-died-due-to-the-jabs/
I’ve read that the VAERS data are vastly under-representative – an academic study from a few years ago estimated just 1% of adverse reactions were reported. A generous figure of 10% would mean over 100,000 deaths and millions of significant other reactions. This jab roll-out and the ignoring of the adverse reactions is criminal.
It’s like the vaccine doesn’t do what it’s purported to do.
and Natural immunity is far better…
All the Nu-Experts who suddenly overturned all the previous tried and tested advice have been wrong, who’d have thought?
Wonder why “our” government followed the nudgers orders?
I’m still waiting to hear how many “vaccinated” are dying “with Covid”. Or are these figures not available?
Within 28 days too, isn’t that how we are supposed to count everything these days?
FOIA request shows 5k plus in Scotland. Can’t link – it was posted on Facebook.
That was for deaths arising from the vaccines.
We don’t have similar data for covid deaths vs vaccination status and by age group.
That info is available for England but not UK. You have to select the correct regional tabs on the gov stats site. You can drill down to local authority level and age related info is shown on all records except hospital admissions.
Admissions just differentiate between over and under 50s.
The differentiation by <50 and >50 is actually rather clever.
It allows anything inconvenient in the >50 data to be explained away by the vaccinated group including the most vulnerable and the unvaccinated group being biased to the 50-60 age group. And anything in the <50 data being explained away by the majority being children who don’t get symptomatic covid.
They could resolve these issues by reporting in 10-year groups, but they don’t do that as it would allow inconvenient truths to emerge.
In the USA the CDC report 11,000 deaths.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaers-deaths-injuries-reported-cdc-covid-vaccines-moderna-pregnant-women/
The actual (uncensored numbers) may be as high as 50,000:
https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/06/24/dr-peter-mccullough-reveals-the-covid-19-vaccines-are-bioweapons-and-a-cdc-whistle-blower-has-confirmed-50000-americans-have-died-due-to-the-jabs/
Interrogating the gov stats shows the vast majority of deaths occurring in the over 75s and it doesn’t take a great leap of imagination to suppose that they may have already been in hospital for something else when they caught it.
The current infection record shows that the infections are much worse among 15 to 30 year olds, but that there is an uptick in positives for people above 75 who might reasonably suppose weren’t out and about socialising when the got it.
Infection record? Based on the PCR and LF tests? Mostly false positives – and, in the absence of symptoms, it is wrong to equate a positive test result (even if it’s accurate) with infection; that’s falling into the government propaganda trap.
There is relatively recent data for deaths “due to” delta variant. You need to be a bit careful how you interpret it though. At the bottom of page 17 the number of deaths for each vaccination status category is given, i.e.
2 doses 118
1 dose 44
Unvaccinated 92
Reasons to be careful: 1/ More vaxed than unvaxed 2/ Unvaxed younger than double vaxed.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1001358/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_18.pdf
So a quick check on the government dashboard shows about one third of the population not taken either injection dose, and 36% of the deaths you report from people who are “unvaccinated”.
Yes, there are caveats, but if this figure is representative of the whole population, or anywhere close, I would tentatively suggest that coercive “vaccination” with these experimental drugs is not justified.
Isn’t this just more of the same crappy PCR test we’ve had for the last 18 months?
In theory no. Zoe tracks symptoms, not just testing. However as Spector has expanded the list of Covid symptoms the raison d’etre would appear to have been lost.
It’s almost like Tim Spector can’t be trusted!
He should have stuck to Motown.
Seems lots of people have deleted the Zoe app after Spector’s support of injecting children.
He has recently expressed concern about the number of people deleting the tracing pinging app.
His true colours have been revealed over the past few months.
He’s firmly in Johnson’s camp.
Sadly, it looks like another scientist has been reminded who pays his salary…
I deleted the zoe app fairly recently and then there is a form from what I remember to say why, so I explained it was because of his support of the experimental vaccination of children. So that sounds plausible that others have done the same.
Spector should have kept his opinions to himself and stuck solely to the data. He has strayed many times into non-data driven interpretations of the data. Had he kept to the data he would have kept both those experimentally vaccinated and unvaccinated on board, and that way helped good data come in from both groups. His narcissistic like of himself and his own importance got the better of him. It’s not like his opinions are based on good science based on application of the scientific method to the data. They seem to be more based on beliefs mixed in with a need to please his government funders.
And the presentation of the data, in particular in relation to experimental vaccination, has now become super-selective, data that doesn’t confirm the government narrative is not made available. It’s not surprising that the chart mentioned above has been deleted.
Let’s remember Zoe also changed the methodology because lots of people were testing positive after experimental vaccination to exclude some of those positives in the vaccinated. So it has never been a fair comparison between the two groups in particular immediately after vaccination.
I also suspect it is biased towards older people. I suspect that many people currently being infected (teens and twenties) wouldn’t bother with it.
Health Ranger exposes planned takedown of America, ending in martial law, halted elections and Holocaust-level mass extermination via spike protein injections
https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-16-health-ranger-exposes-planned-takedown-of-america-ending-in-military-martial-law.html
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Home Schooling – Ex-Primary School Teacher on Resistance GB YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ5oS2ejye0
https://www.hopesussex.co.uk/our-mission
the trend for unvaccinated people is no longer representative.
Representative of what?
That we are just living a normalish exsistance with no need of the vax Bullshittery!!!!
Not statistically valid.
Isn’t it remarkable that the trend only became invalid, statistically, when infections in the vaccinated overtook infections in the unvaccinated….
Very well said Will Jones:
“At what point will the Government accept that these vaccines have limited efficacy in preventing infection and transmission, and thus the whole rationale of being vaccinated to protect others – vaccine passports, compulsory vaccination, and so on – is suspect?”
Never
Chap I work with had two jabs a while back really ill this past week , positive PCR test etc , now if he were able to hold himself together he could theoretically get on a plane & have “access all areas” while us doubters who are not ill can’t !!
They get to everyone.
This isn’t rocket science.
ZOE app uses anyone after a single dose for “vaccinated”.
In most parts of the UK its 80-90% of the eligible population now.
Of course zoe “vaccinated” are going to have more cases when (i) 80% of the sample is “vaccinated” and (ii) we know 2 doses are needed for any useful protection and half that group haven’t had that.
Not a conspiracy, its basic maths.
If 100% of adults got vaccinated then ALL infections would be in the vaccinated cohort. Its meaningless.
You miss the point.
If the jabbed get infected, then vax passports, privileges for the vaxed and restrictions for the unvaxed make no sense.
My thinking exactly , how can you have a jab passport if you can still spread & catch covid ! There can be no such thing , surely it cannot exist – The Dead Parrot sketch was creeping up on me just then ! Come on one of you creative buggers turn what I’ve just said into a parody of that sketch ! We could call it “The Dead VaxPass sketch” Maybe Lozza would film it & get it out there !! ..
I think you missed the point, the “passport” wouldn’t be issued until three weeks after a second jab, when maximum protection is acquired.
I hasten to add that I am very much opposed to passports and now have doubts about the jab, despite having them some time back (before a lot of the latest data has become available).
It is strange how common this ‘if 100% were vaccinated 100% of infections would be in the vaccinated‘ argument is. It is clearly true, but up until that point inferences could readily be made. Even if there were 99% vaccinated that would still leave close to half a million unvaccinated, which would be fine for statistical purposes.
Of course, they should be reporting ‘cases per 100,000’ instead of totals. I find it odd that they didn’t do this. But then, again and again, they seem to not do obvious things.
Like their seeming inability to ever produce data showing cases/hospitalisations/deaths by vaccination status and age group. You know, like the Israeli data recently that shows that the vaccines are now highly ineffective at reducing cases (still nothing there on hospitalisations and deaths). To me this is something that is obvious to do, because without it you can’t see how the vaccines are performing — but of course that’s the point — they aren’t performing well and the authorities would prefer us to not know about it. I’m sure that if the data supported vaccination they’d be providing daily updates and gushing about it in the briefings.
Of course they do provide data on cases vs vaccination and age in the briefings, but only for >50 and <50 — this is rather clever of them, as this specific age group is the one that allows age effects to be discounted — in the >50 group the vaccinated include the most vulnerable and the unvaccinated are in the lower range (ie ‘of course it shows the vaccinated become ill’) while in the <50 all the children aren’t vaccinated and they very rarely get symptomatic covid (so ‘of course there aren’t many ill in the unvaccinated’). It is all rather clever of them, IMO.
Thank god for LS.org achiving this info. It further shows me that Mr Spector has become Mr Spectre over the past months
I still do the Zoe app. Every day new test? no; vaccination? No; feeling well? Yes. I figure if enough people did the same, it would show our healthiness in the graphs.
I did it, for the same reasons, until Spector came out of jabbing kids. That was a step too far for me.
Well what a surprise…the vaccine that isn’t a vaccine. Why would gene therapy stop you from catching a virus?
One of the things that I ponder over is the spike proteins that your reprogrammed cells would produce if you were mad enough to take the jab. As it is your body producing them, would your immune system treat those spike proteins as invaders, or let them pass?
I have no idea.
So at what point do the vaccinated start to think it very odd that every single one of them is starting to test positive and that some of them die within 28 days of the positive result?
The testing scam and the experimental vaccines are going to become mutually exclusive at some point in the near future. You can’t hold these two things as true at the same time. Even in Covid Clownworld it’s going to become difficult.
Testing for the unvaccinated only? But how can they keep the fear going in the vaccinated without the testing rituals?
Zoe? He who pays the piper plays the tune. And there you have it!
I deleted the Zoe app last month after Tim Spector became one of the star sales reps for pharma. His posts are contradictory as he tries to retain his credibility of a scientist pushing for public health against the incentives (financial or not) to chirrup the government narrative. His refusal to accept that the injections are causing death and injuries on a scale we just don’t know, also prompted me to unfollow him on Twitter. Shame as I thought I could trust him with The Data!
What is very very interesting about the graph is the delay between the unvaccinated and vaccinated peaks.
The absolute values aren’t so interesting — 70% of the population have been vaccinated so you’d expect rather a few cases in the vaccinated. Of course, the data do show that the vaccines now offer little protection against infection, but we already have plenty of different data showing that (despite the efforts by the authorities to suppress it).
No, what’s truly fascinating is the delay between the peak in unvaccinated cases and in the vaccinated (where the peak isn’t clear yet).
This is ‘impossible’ according to our current belief in the effect of the vaccines, because both vaccinated and unvaccinated experience the same infectious pressure in the environment, so you should only see a difference in the size of the case load for vaccinated vs unvaccinated, and no difference in time. There are a few potential explanations, but one leading candidate is that the time course of disease in the vaccinated is slower — ie, the infected caught covid at the same time as the unvaccinated, but that it has taken until now for symptoms to appear (Zoe is largely a measure of symptomatic infection, and will have little input from the asymptomatic infected (unless they’ve had a positive test result through surveillance testing). This then invites a few questions:
So, given all the above, it is clear that it is in the authorities’ best interests to suppress this information — because then the public will go on adoring them for saving them from covid, rather than hating them because they foolishly pursued a policy ended up making things worse.
Great post, thank you.
Quite possibly. If information was emerging that didn’t fit the narrative I am sure they would not rush to publish it. My suspicion however is that they simply are not looking to understand properly what is going on because they are not remotely interested. They know they can manipulate some headline stats to fit what direction they want to go in, they know the media won’t ask awkward questions and neither will most of the medical establishment.
Vaccines nicht macht frei
So can we get to the stage where we awaken to this giant corporate takeover and start trials?
The graph was not very helpful. If you look at the graph there was an uptick in vaccinations at the end of June when younger people were bludgeoned into taking it by scare stories and threats of not being able to go abroad.
That was less than a month ago, which means that most of those people have not reached the end of the 3 week perod before any level of immunity kicks in, and are nowhere near getting a second shot. Arguably the period immediately post-jab makes them particularly susceptible to infection. ZOE only records that they have been jabbed, not whether it has had a chance to become effective.
This coincides with the ending of a period when most of them will have been locked down (no jobs, no training and too old for school) and they then meet up with their mates and celebrate their freedom.
The end result, limited protection and unrestrained mixing.
And all the while, the cases in the unvaccinated plummet, as restrictions are similarly lifted, suggesting endemic equilibrium has been reached in that cohort, yet not in the vaccinated cohort, who should have the same level of protection from the endemic equilibrium, UNLESS the virus has wiped their natural immunity… could that be the spectre Spector is attempting to conceal?
There have been about a million first vaccinations since the end of June to now; this is ‘many’ but really doesn’t change the dynamic at population level by very much.
You’re right that there’s now robust evidence of a 2-3 week period post 1st jab where there is increased risk of catching covid (and of consequential symptomatic covid). This increased risk is only by about 50%, so you wouldn’t expect that to impact that much on the data either.
But the increased risk post jab is clearly important — I find it remarkable that the authorities aren’t warning people to be very careful about mixing with others in this period — it probably would be one of the few behavioural changes that would actually make a significant reduction of individual risk.
Maybe the authorities are, surreptitiously, using their brains, for once, and omitting to divulge this information so that people mix, catch and transmit the virus and (if the jabs haven’t buggered up their immune systems) develop natural (and robust) immunity to the virus. Then, hey presto, the statistics for infection and infectiousness after a second jab suddenly look world beating… the problem they have is New Zealand which might explain why their vaccine rollout is so slow.
People have had plenty of chances to develop natural immunity over the last 18 months, but…
… The evidence (from covid and prior research on coronavirus infections) is that humans don’t generate a long term protective antibody response to coronaviruses. We do generate a acquired cellular response to coronaviruses, but the cellular immune system of the vulnerable is compromised, hence them being so very susceptible to covid.
The evidence looks as though the significant and sustained antibody response arising from the vaccines is not only ineffective against covid, but actually works to suppress the natural immune response to covid (which is dominated by the innate immune system, at least in the early stages).
This does not bode well for the future.
The question that has bothered me all along is whether the “vaccines” also wipe cellular immunity to other diseases? Could we see a measles epidemic?
Then we’ll need a measles booster. Yes I have the same suspicion, outsourcing the immune system to vaccines will lead to more vaccines. Kerching!
“Perhaps ZOE should try to recruit some more unvaccinated people for its survey”. Sorry Will I was, or rather would have been one of the unvaccinated but I stopped using the Zoe app sometime ago. I believe Spector is part of the “controlled opposition”. UK Column featured him once they weren’t very impressed, nor was I. He seems a tad creepy and I think he knows a lot more than he’s letting on. In short I stopped trusting him and his app.
Ah now yes, I feel something has changed about Tim Spector. I started using Zoe last November after I watched him doing one of his video updates. He was speaking about herd immunity and for most people the then expected vaccines would not be necessary, just the vulnerable and health and care workers who could be exposed to greater risk. Since then he has changed to become more everyone should be vaccinated. It would be my guess that he is trying to get funding and to please his potential funders.
Yep I think that was the gist of UK Column’s report, also have a sneaky suspicion the BAMGF was mentioned somewhere – surprise surprise! Thus the controlled opposition comment.
I’m unjabbed (as is the dragon), and we still check in every day. However a do agree that Spector is a tame critic. When it comes down to it he just parrots the party line.
The big problem with Zoe has always been (to my way of thinking) dependent on self reporting and self diagnosis. It is open to all sorts of abuse and is an entirely self selecting (self obsessed?) cohort.
Yes, from some of the questions and answers I see on Zoe the participants are very biased to covidians. I wonder if they might feel anyone still reporting who is unvaccinated is an infiltrator?
So, clearly “Unvaccinated” is the way to go then.
What’s that you say – you’ve already had the “vaccine”?
Oh sorry to hear that, you can’t “undo” that, unfortunately…
I had my doubts about the ZOE app. This censoring of data just confirms those doubts to the point you can throw the app and its data in the bin.
If they had been honest about things, they could have stated why they thought that the data was problematic, and left the data there. But to excise it makes it clear that they made a mistake with their propaganda and now need to show you something else.
I suspect the data shows that there are hardly any cases in the unvaccinated and that cannot be possible as far as they are concerned, and certainly can’t be admitted, because it would obliterate the whole vaccine narrative.
It’s a fraud Will.
The reporting criteria are already different for both, even most sceptics seem to have forgotten that.
The biggest fraud in that regard is of course taking place in the US, with its ct of 28 for the vaccinated but a continued 40 or so for the unvaccinated.
It is impossible to NOT get a reading of 99% of cases being unvaccinated, as Biden crowed yesterday, with this fraudulent double standard applied, which was introduced without any medical reason but with exactly this, sole purpose.
Going to start using a pair of crutches to get around on, just in case I’ve got an asymptomatic broken leg.
ZOE!!?? didn’t et funded by The Gates Foundation !??
even they cant keep the lid on this can of exploding worms the the Vaccinated are getting sick.
Hide the decline. I’ve come across that before. Is Tim Spector mates with Michael Mann?
I am old enough to remember when many sites promoted up-to-the-minute graphs of cases and deaths, even before the pandemic was declared. Worldometers, Ourworldindata, Johns Hopkins, etc. were all in competition to see who would show data first. Isn’t it funny how they are silent about reporting cases & deaths in the vaccinated?
In reading the comments, I notice that there’s no discussion of cycle thresholds used for testing. My understanding is that the WHO, or CDC have amended the protocols, to have the unvaccinated continued to be tested at >40 cycles, and the vaccinated at about 30. That would skew the numbers further, and find many, many false +ves amongst the unvaxxed.