With this 13-minute video, you'll be up to speed. Are you a fast reader or are (English) videos not your thing: the Dutch translation is below, with the original slides from the presentation. It is a plea against the mandatory vaccination that American counties must now decide for or against. It reflects the current state of the medical crisis in a nutshell. There is little to add, except possibly the graphs from a RIVM study, but I had already covered them in previous posts, see Unheard of criticism of MK Part 1 and Part 3. They tell exactly the same story.
Dr. Scot Youngblood (MD) had a controversial presentation earlier, less than a year ago. The story he kept there has only become stronger, with more data and therefore progressive insight.
Scot Youngblood's presentation video at the San Diego City Council Meeting (video)
Dutch translation of Scot Youngblood's presentation at the San Diego City Council Meeting
My name is Scott Youngblood.
I'm a doctor and I'm here to discuss the Covid-19 vaccines and how effective they've been during the pandemic, specifically in terms of the transmission of the disease.
I know you are considering maintaining the Covid state of emergency and I want to prove today that mandatory vaccinations, which are possible due to the state of emergency, actually make things worse.
As you can see on the first slide, national leaders promised the American people that if you got the vaccines, you won't be able to contract or transmit the virus.
Unfortunately, this turned out not to be true. In recent weeks, four prominent figures: the President of the US, the First Lady, the Secretary of Defense and the CEO of Pfizer have all become infected with Covid-19, some for the second time. All were quadruple vaccinated and received Paxlovid, a strong antiviral drug.
Any critical thinker should ask the question, "Four vaccinations of a vaccine and you're still getting it? And if you have it, should you take a strong drug? The vaccine can't be that good!"
Well, so-called breakthrough infections were so common that the CDC dropped that term, and instead of admitting it wasn't a good vaccine, they literally changed the definition of the word "vaccine." It was always "something that induces immunity", it is now "something that stimulates an immune response".
The only possible justification for a vaccine obligation is that it prevents contamination and transmission. All of these promises were made without scientific data, as none of the original vaccine studies even looked at these questions.
People's careers have ended and lives have been destroyed by mandates based on conjecture and not science.
So what is the effectiveness of a vaccine? It's a relative risk reduction, not absolute. It is 'relative' to the unvaccinated or placebo group in a study. The original Pfizer study showed an absolute risk reduction of only 0.84%, which is less than 1 percent. Infections were so rare in both arms of the study.
In July 2021, there were major problems with the effectiveness of the vaccine. There was an outbreak among the fully vaccinated in Barnstable, Massachusetts.
Reports from around the world showed that the vaccinated were vulnerable to infection and that the levels of the transmission virus in the nose and mouth, determining contagiousness, were as high or higher in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated. The vaccinated had circulating antibodies in their blood but not in their saliva, making it more likely that they could spread the virus while being relatively asymptomatic. The CDC director admitted that the vaccines did not stop transmission.
And then we see the same pattern emerging around the world: countries with high vaccination rates that see each new wave getting bigger and bigger.
An example on this slide are Israel, Jordan and Lebanon: three small neighboring countries with a similar climate. The original infection levels of the strain were very similar in these countries, after which vaccinations took place and Israel became one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. In the delta wave, Israeli cases were five times as high and omicron ten times as high.
And here's the heat map for counties in the United States for vaccinations on the left and cases on the right. You can see that the most vaccinated provinces are also the provinces with the most corona cases.
Here the United States is plotted in a point graph. There is a positive correlation, which means that the most appropriate trend line runs up and to the right: the higher the vaccination rate in the state (X-axis), the higher the number of cases (Y-axis).
And this is the heat map for countries in the world. Again, you can see the correlation between vaccination coverage and the number of cases in these countries.
Here the European countries in a graph. Here, too, the most appropriate line is up and to the right: if the vaccination rate rises, the number of cases also rises.
The same pattern therefore applies at the level of the provinces, of states and of countries.
From extra protection to greater vulnerability
This is the typical graph of a vaccine's efficacy over time. Although initially high, it drops after a few months and then, after about six or seven months, it becomes negative and that is the important point. Months after these vaccinations, the protection does not fall back to the baseline, but becomes negative: the vaccinated have a greater chance of infection than the unvaccinated.
This is from last week's New England Journal of Medicine: a study on children after mRNA vaccinations. The peak action of the vaccine decreases with each new virus strain, but they all decrease with time.
After four and a half months after vaccination, the efficacy even becomes negative and crosses the horizontal line indicated by the red arrow. After four and a half months, the vaccinated are worse off and the pattern repeats itself.
Efficacy decreases with time and with genetic distance from the original virus. Here's a study from Denmark, which shows that the people fully vaccinated by Pfizer had a negative efficacy of 76% against omicron, meaning that 176 vaccinated people become infected for every 100 unvaccinated.
Here's U.K. data showing that the triple-vaxed individuals were four and a half times more likely to test positive for omicron than the non-vaxed individuals. The more doses, the more likely you are to test positive.
Here are the infection rates in the UK. The blue or the vaccinated versus the orange or unvaccinated. In February of this year, at the end of the booster campaign in that country, the triple-vaccinated adults had higher infection rates than the unvaccinated ones.
Several studies have shown the superiority of natural immunity. A large study in Israel showed a 26 times higher protection rate for natural immunity than for full vaccination.
Here's the New England Journal article on children showing that natural immunity without vaccination is very durable at 17 months: there's still a positive 50 percent efficacy against new virus strains. More than 90 percent of the population has already seen the virus and therefore now has natural immunity to Covid.
But what happens if you impose a vaccination on someone who already has natural immunity?
In this study, the efficacy of children with natural immunity after vaccination was negative at five months, while efficacy at 17 months was positive. This is extremely alarming, as it indicates that vaccination harms the natural immunity of the population.
ADE is suddenly no longer a showstopper
Why, then, does efficacy drop to negative and natural immunity even be compromised? How does this happen? Multiple symptoms and vaccine studies explain this, including Original Antigenic Sin and ADE (antibody-dependent enhancement).
Antibody-dependent amplification or "ADE" is the paradoxical increase in the ability of the virus to infect the vaccinated patient or person in the background and cause disease.
The human cell has developed over thousands of years in such a way that it is very difficult for a virus to attach itself to a human cell and infect the human cell. The human cell is actually very "slippery".
In response to the vaccine, the human body makes two types of antibodies. The first kind are neutralizing antibodies that kill the virus. They do what we want. The second type of antibodies are non-neutralizing or reinforcing antibodies. They bind to the virus, but do not kill the virus.
Antibodies not only stick to the virus, they also stick to the human cell, so paradoxically, ironically, they make it easier for the virus to attach to the human cell and infect the cell, as can be seen here. Thus, with ADE, not only the risk of a first infection is greater, but also the severity of the disease, because during the disease re-infection occurs constantly.
And this is an elegant study from Japan that essentially shows that neutralizing antibodies require high concentrations and no mutations in the virus to work, while strengthening antibodies still worked at lower concentrations on a mutated delta strain. This could explain why efficacy turns negative when antibody levels drop.
Researchers have been trying to develop a vaccine against colds for years. Coronavirus is one of the cold viruses. One of the biggest stumbling blocks of the last decades is ADE, where the vaccines actually make the disease worse.
So to believe that there is no ADE with the current Covid vaccines, you have to assume that the biopharmaceutical complex has achieved in eight months what they could not achieve in decades before.
CDC: Vaccinated remain contagious
On August 11, the CDC published new guidelines for Covid-19 specifically for quarantine and testing. They now recommend that vaccinated and unvaccinated should be treated in the same way.
This means that after a possible exposure, the risk of infection and subsequent transmission by a person is the same, whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated. This recognition, although very late, removes the public health basis for any vaccine mandate and so these mandates should be withdrawn immediately. The truth may be that since the efficacy of the vaccine becomes negative after six months, the vaccinated have a greater chance of being infected.
The Covid-19 vaccines have multiple shortcomings. They haven't reduced infection or transmission, they're leaky, they're encouraging variants, the successive waves have gotten bigger, and multiple countries are reporting data showing an increase in the disease among the highly vaccinated. I understand that this contradicts locally reported data.
This is from New South Wales in Australia and just published on September 3: of all hospitalized patients, only one was unvaccinated, compared to 173 quadruple vaccinated and 135 triple vaccinated patients.
Undesirable effects after vaccination
This is only the efficacy side. Of course, the vaccine must be safe and effective. On the safety side, there is a mountain of safety data on these vaccines. Any reporting system around the world: VAERS, the Yellow Card system in the UK, the World Health Organisation Vigibase and others, all report more adverse events with these vaccines in one year than all other vaccines combined in the history of these reporting systems. It's not just VAERS, it's a pattern and the data literally runs off the map.
But the ultimate shortcut scorecard in any response to a pandemic is all-cause mortality, preventing excess deaths. Deaths among those who otherwise should not have occurred.
According to the CDC, there were more deaths in 2021 after the vaccines than in 2020. This should not happen in a pandemic. By the main measure, these vaccines have failed as a public health intervention.
The conclusion is that we cannot vaccinate ourselves out of this pandemic. With sufficient time, the risk of infection and disease is greater among the vaccinated. Worse, vaccinations can potentially poison our natural immunity
The CDC's latest guidelines take away any justification for vaccination mandates. So based on all this, if you are considering extending the state of emergency, please ask the question: Have mass vaccinations with a 'leaky' vaccine exacerbated the pandemic?