Who’s winning the vaccine war?

There are many losers in wars. But not many winners. Financial gains can be made, especially for those with investments in both sides.

This post was inspired by an article I’ve just read by Kit Knightly co-editor of OffGuardian called “CDC Director: “We may need to update our definition of ‘fully vaccinated’”“. Knightly observes:

We already know that, in the US and others, you’re not considered “vaccinated” if you’re only single-jabbed, or double-jabbed for less than two weeks. So any patient infected with “Covid” in that time is considered “unvaccinated”, NOT a “breakthrough infection”.

By redefining “fully vaccinated”, they can turn millions of double-jabbed people back into “unvaccinated” people and stop them from becoming potential “breakthrough infections” and hurting the vaccine effectiveness stats.

And the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) is ready to amend, yet again, what it means to be “fully vaccinated”. This is likely to depend on the vaccine uptake. To help enforce the drive the CDC has already put out a paper designed to call pilgrims to the shrine of the unholy needle.

Because most people rely on MSM for their day-to-day doses of dodgy dogma, promoters have had to get a public relations prophet to preach the eternal and heavenly joys of what the CDC paper can hold for the vaccinated. Thus the catchy title for medics of “COVID-19 Vaccination and Non–COVID-19 Mortality Risk — Seven Integrated Health Care Organizations, United States, December 14, 2020–July 31, 2021” has been modified for the hoi polloi Sun readers to “People vaccinated against Covid-19 less likely to die from any cause, study finds”.

Furthermore, they have commandeered the smooth-tongued crusader, US Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, to oil the tracks of the road to eternity easing the toxic jab into the arms of 28 million children aged 5 to 11.

The CDC provides an accompanying chorus with its own advert contained in the “academic” paper, presumably in case a common MSM pilgrim should chance to progress to it.

So are they safe?

Of course not. For a start the study is only concerned with short-term deaths because the long-term effects could take years, decades in some cases. What is more it has used the very subterfuge OffGuardian’s Kit Knightly referred to in his article in redefining the “fully vaccinated” standard to incorporate booster jabs – will this murder ever end?

As well as the obvious disclosed research funding from Pfizer, GSK and others with a financial stake, Big Pharma no doubt has other means of persuading CDC researchers to give them the demanded result. Perhaps a future career offer. Who knows? But, anyway, this is not real research. It is paid-for research

Two sentences immediately stand out.

“After excluding COVID-19–associated deaths, overall SMRs after dose 1 were 0.42 and 0.37 per 100 person-years for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, respectively, and were 0.35 and 0.34, respectively, after dose 2 (Table 2).”


“In a cohort of 6.4 million COVID-19 vaccinees and 4.6 million demographically similar unvaccinated persons, recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Janssen vaccines had lower non–COVID-19 mortality risk than did the unvaccinated comparison groups.”

“After excluding COVID-19–associated deaths. . .” Hmm. Most of us know by now, or strongly suspect, that vaccines are giving recipients Covid-19. So any deaths from those “vaccinated” who tested positive before their demise are removed from the statistics – and there could have been hundreds, if not thousands.

The key phrase from the second sentence is “had lower non–COVID-19 mortality risk”. What this means too is if they had Covid-19 – which the jabs had given them – and the first shot killed them, they would have been removed from the statistics as “non-vaccinated” and having Covid-19. Only non-Covid-19 mortality is included in the vaccinated cohort.

If they died within fourteen days of the second shot – likewise. They would have fitted the Covid-19 death count – and therefore not be included in the “lower non-Covid mortality” group.

That’s how they’ve fudged it.

However the “study” does state that “healthy vaccinee effects were found in all but the youngest age group” meaning the “vaccines” are of absolutely no benefit in the 12-17 age-group.

So yes, the war goes on. In this field of battle there are countless “vaccine” casualties. It is a bloodbath with little blood. If that is called winning then the victory so far goes to Big Pharma – and its lies.

They say in war that the first victim is the truth. In the long-term the truth will come out. By then it will be too late for many. Even now all the proper believable statistics show that it is the vaccinated who are filling the hospitals. This is evident from the articles on Lithuania and Australia and our Statistics page. The following video shows it is just the same in Israel.

2 thoughts on “Who’s winning the vaccine war?

  1. And when (required) if one doesn’t have “the booster” shot (number 3 – – of a lifetime of shots) one will AGAIN be considered UNvaccinated.



Comments are closed.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: