FDA: Vaccines Don't Need to Prevent Infection or Transmission
I am not a doctor, scientist, or expert in anything. This content should not be construed as advice or recommendation, but is intended for entertainment and informational purposes only.
As if we needed further proof that the COVID pandemic and subsequent “vaccines” were little more than a massive scam, the marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry known as the FDA has made it clear that vaccines don’t need to prevent infection or transmission to gain approval.
In a response to a petition made by the Coalition Advocating for Adequately Labeled Medicines (CAALM) requesting what amounts to honest disclosure in the labeling of the COVID shots, Dr. Peter Marks, the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research informed CAALM:
It is important to note that FDA’s authorization and licensure standards for vaccines do not require demonstration of the prevention of infection or transmission. A vaccine can meet the licensure standard if the vaccine’s benefits of protecting against disease outweigh the vaccine’s risks for the licensed use. There is no requirement that the vaccine also prevents infection with the pathogen that can cause the disease or transmission of that pathogen to others.48 Similarly, a vaccine can meet the EUA standard without any evidence that the vaccine prevents infection or transmission. To that end, there is no requirement that the clinical trials supporting a vaccine’s licensure or authorization be designed to determine whether the vaccine prevents infection of a pathogen or transmission of that pathogen to others.
You can read the full response to the petition here.
This entire paragraph is quite enlightening. Not only does it confirm once again that President Biden, Tony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky and others misled the American public about the shots’ abilities to end the plannedemic, it also raises some other questions.
First, what are the benefits if these shots don’t prevent infection or transmission? They were effective at what exactly? Preventing severe COVID?
How do we know they were effective at all against severe COVID given that the time frame for the clinical trials was really only a couple of months at most and people were locked in their homes during the trials? Based on the incredibly limited data from the trials, Pfizer’s shots had an absolute risk reduction of around 0.8% under dubious circumstances.
And why mandate something that wasn’t even tested to see if it prevented infection or transmission?
Do the benefits, whatever they may be, really outweigh the risks given that all-cause mortality was higher in the treatment arm of the trials yet that information was not disclosed to the public until a judge forced the FDA to release Pfizer’s documents in a few months instead of the 75 years the FDA and Pfizer wanted to take. Mind you, this release of documents and revelation about mortality rates in the trials came out more than a year after these shots had been unleashed on the public.
How do we know what the risks of the shots are given that the placebo group was unblinded as soon as Pfizer, Moderna, and others got EUA approval? It takes years to uncover risks of a new medication or vaccine.
Even though we have been told by medical authorities for decades that vaccines save countless lives by preventing infection and transmission and have been mandated so children can attend school, we’re now told that a vaccine doesn’t need to prevent infection or transmission. If a vaccine doesn’t really stop infection or transmission, is it even a vaccine?
Sounds more like a therapeutic than a vaccine to me, and it casts doubt over the supposed effectiveness of every vaccine. How do we know if any vaccine stops infection or transmission?
Just because they said so? Where’s the data that demonstrates no infection as a result of getting the vaccines? So what if they can see some antibodies as a result of administering a vaccine. Just showing an increase in antibodies doesn’t mean a damn thing.
Fauci has informed us that flu shots don’t prevent infection or transmission. We also know that that DTaP vaccines don’t prevent infection and the pertussis portion doesn’t prevent transmission either. This is to say nothing of the fact that none of the childhood vaccines have ever been tested in placebo controlled RCTs so we don’t know if they’re truly safe or work better than a placebo.
Many vaccines have actually done very little, if anything at all, in terms of reducing mortality of their respective diseases which by and large were not really existential threats to begin with.
Mortality data sources: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/vsus.htm & https://wonder.cdc.gov/Deaths-by-Underlying-Cause.html
Mortality data sources: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/vsus.htm & https://wonder.cdc.gov/Deaths-by-Underlying-Cause.html
Mortality data sources: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/vsus.htm & https://wonder.cdc.gov/Deaths-by-Underlying-Cause.html
So what’s really going on when it comes to vaccines? This is pure speculation on my part, but I suspect that the true believers who developed vaccines were satisfying their egos in the regard that they had unlocked the keys to nature and therefore could circumvent it. The pharmaceutical companies don’t care whether or not this stuff works or is safe, in fact, they probably don’t want to know. All they care about is a good story they can sell to maximize shareholder value.
The best way to maximize shareholder value is to corrupt the bureaucracies that were put in place ostensibly to ensure a product is safe and effective in order to create a moat around the entire industry protecting it from competition and give the illusion that we can buy what they’re selling without question.
The final piece was to create narratives that are sold in medical schools to mold pharma foot soldiers out of doctors who then go on to assure us that “The Science” tells us this stuff works with no real proof they have ever worked as advertised.
I make no recommendations other than to be skeptical of everyone and everything, especially when it comes to trusting the expert consensus in an environment where truth is hard to come by.