Stupid questions, even dumber answers!
Observations of the Australian Senate Committee inquiry into COVID-19 Vaccine Status Discrimination
If this enquiry was a pantomime, we’d all know to hiss and boo when the baddies - the corporate stooges - come on stage. “He’s behind you!” we shout, to the goodies; our favourite politicians. And we join in with the banter between the committee members: "Oh no he isn’t”, "Oh yes he is!"
But this Senate committee is confronting the most important issue1 ever dealt with, in the history of the Nation; the maiming, death and future health of its people!
I struggle to choose the correct words to describe the process because it is simultaneously excruciating and infuriating to observe.
The time is wasted by the committee on what ultimately amounts to a meaningless performance; given the well known facts. Most of these “controversies” are beyond dispute by any side because they have long been a matter of public record!
Already, at the start of phase III trials before any “vaccine” had been declared “effective” The British Medical Journal (BMJ) associate editor, Peter Doshi had noted:
"None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”2
Company representatives are on record too. Moderna’s chief medical officer, Tal Zaks told The BMJ:
“Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission…Would I like to know that this prevents mortality? Sure, because I believe it does. I just don’t think it’s feasible within the timeframe [of the trial].”
So, this begs the question, why are these facts considered news now, almost three years later? Why is this being discussed as if it is new information, when it has been public knowledge since well before any “vaccine” had gained any form of approval by any government agency?
To be absolutely clear, in all of the COVID-19 “vaccine” trials, the endpoints did not include, demonstrate or claim any of the following:
To reduce severe COVID-19 disease (hospital admission, ICU or death).
To prevent infection of the SARS-COV 2 virus.
To be able to interrupt transmission (person to person spread) of the SARS-COV 2 virus.
The stated reason for not even attempting to demonstrate prevention of transmission, was simply the cost!
The stated reason for not even attempting to demonstrate a reduction in hospital admissions or death, was that the trials would have had to have been a least ten times larger to capture the very low rate of serious illness - the very low infection fatality rate - of the virus!
Zaks added, “A 30 000 [participant] trial is already a fairly large trial. If you’re asking for a 300 000 trial then you need to talk to the people who are paying for it, because now you’re talking about not a $500m to $1bn trial, you’re talking about something 10 times the size.*
The reason none of the “vaccines” could ever hope to block an “infection" of the VIRUS itself (SARS-COV 2) is that they could not produce mucosal immunity3. Antibodies in the blood can provide systemic immunity at best, against the DISEASE (COVID-19) but do not produce the necessary secretory IgA (SIgA) in the mucosa4 that would provide defence against infection with the VIRUS (SARS-COV 2)!
At this point, a little background knowledge is necessary in order to see through the deliberately opaque language of these Doctors.
The Virus and the Disease
The virus and the disease are two separate things!
The official narrative began with the conflation of the terms when the two were first named. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended the interim name “2019-nCoV5 acute respiratory disease” for the the illness. Chinese scientists had initially given “the Wuhan pneumonia” the name, “novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia” (NCIP). Which was officially shortened to “novel coronavirus pneumonia” (NCP) by China's National Health Commission.
Other scientists suggested renaming NCIP as “pneumonia-associated respiratory syndrome (PARS)” and 2019-nCoV as “PARS coronavirus (PARS-CoV)”, in order to retain equivalence with the historical pattern of MERS and SARS as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV in the existing terminology6. Unfortunately, viruses are named by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). The ICTV announced “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)” as the name of the new virus on 11 February 2020.
I'm not the first to point out that this is very confusing, because the name of the new virus sounds like a disease. Despite this the WHO also announced “COVID-19” as the name of the new disease on the very same day. Sadly, by using the name of the virus, “2019 Corona Virus” (Plus “D” for disease) as the name of the disease (CoViD-19) and the name of a disease (SARS) in the name of the virus (SARS-CoV-2) by the ICTV, an ongoing confusion was created that is now cast in stone. Unfortunately, within the larger general public, the disease is now almost universally associated with a positive test for the presence of the virus.7
Shell games have been played and you've got to follow the pea closely here because these naming strategies are as pure an example of circular reasoning you'll probably ever come across. To accept the name of the disease is to accept the virus as the cause of the disease. If that wasn't tautologically maddening enough, this confusion has been worsened by the WHO's deliberate insistence on the further conflation of the two terms, which according to their own words, is their unmistakeable intension:
“[We have] begun referring to the virus as the virus responsible for COVID-19 or the COVID-19 virus when communicating with the public.”8
If you hadn't noticed the redundancies, the disease is the now, the Corona Virus Disease Virus!
In my opinion “PARS” as the name of the disease and “PARS-COV” for the virus, would have been infinitely better choices. As it isn't uncommon for a virus to have an alphanumeric taxonomy, such as H1N1 for example, I would go even further in pursuit of clarity by reducing the name of the virus to just “CV19”.
So when any authority says COVID, think the DISEASE9 and if they say INFECTION think with the VIRUS10 !
Armed with just this knowledge alone, I advise anybody to reread the Hansard or watch the video11 again because you will immediately appreciate the nonsensical nature of the whole “show”. The sophistry on display by the TGA and Big Pharma apparatchiks, is so twisted at times, that pretzel-like, they actually disappear up the self-consuming holes of their own making! The imaginative language of one of the TGA’s Doctors, late in the proceedings, is a particularly spectacular example of haughty mendacity:
"Dr Pengilley: Thank you for the question. I know this has been an issue of some discussion tonight. You can look at transmission broadly in two ways. You can look at it as the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing somebody getting COVID; if you do that, then you've prevented transmission to that person. Both in the clinical studies that have been submitted for registration and moreover in the literature now, there is an abundance of evidence that vaccination has the ability to prevent people from acquiring an infection of COVID however that is defined, whether you define it with symptomatic infection, serious infection or just—“12
This may have sounded reasonable at first pass but given the seriousness of these matters and in the light of the demonstrable facts; it is ludicrous in the extreme! ;-(
Maiming and death caused by COVID “vaccines” is undisputed by various governments around the world; only the numbers are now in question!
E.G. “The mRNA BNT162b2 vaccination elicits a strong systemic immune response by drastically boosting neutralizing antibodies development in serum, but not in saliva, indicating that at least oral mucosal immunity is poorly activated by this vaccination protocol, thus failing in limiting virus acquisition upon its entry through this route.”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(21)00582-X/fulltext
Where ‘n’ is for novel and ‘CoV’ is for coronavirus.
Strictly speaking, the extracellular phase of a virus is called a virion. I'm very wary of the jargon weeds, otherwise I would have used it here.
Has developed into PARS, a systemic illness beyond the terminal airways. Virus detectable in blood serum.
CV19, virions are detected as present in the mucosa of the upper respiratory tract (URT) and may or may not be an active infection of epithelia.
Why are there no comments here, despite thousands of views?