Fauci admits flu shots and the Corona "vaccines" don't work.

Fauci is a co-author of a paper from 4 weeks ago spelling this out.

Of course Fauci and his co-authors didn’t use the words “flu shots and the Corona “vaccines” don’t work”, but they did say enough that’s pretty much the meaning. (And yes I realize that I already had quotations around the full comment, but any time I’m talking about the Corona versions the word “vaccine” is going to get the quotes.) In the lead off Summary section of their paper, they said this:

Viruses that replicate in the human respiratory mucosa without infecting systemically, including influenza A, SARS-CoV-2, endemic coronaviruses, RSV, and many other “common cold” viruses, cause significant mortality and morbidity and are important public health concerns. Because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves, they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines. In this review, we examine challenges that have impeded development of effective mucosal respiratory vaccines, emphasizing that all of these viruses replicate extremely rapidly in the surface epithelium and are quickly transmitted to other hosts, within a narrow window of time before adaptive immune responses are fully marshaled.

Of course “SARS-CoV-2” is the “COVID-19” virus, which I always just call Corona. Any time you read something like this, you have to consider the source. Even if the source is very honest, that person or those people will be choosing language that portrays them and their efforts in the best possible light.

If the source is dishonest as hell like Fauci, you know the words chosen are actually much better than the reality. So when you see “they have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed or experimental vaccines” from Fauci and a couple others, you should read that most accurately and simple as “annual flu shots and the Corona “vaccines” do not work”. (By all means, take a look at the Cleveland Clinic study showing that the more “bivalent” jabs you have, the more likely you are to be infected. Download the pdf to see the graphs at the end, as they actually contradict the results text claiming modest effectiveness.)

Maybe I missed something or maybe the terminology was changed for effect just like “global warming” was replaced with “climate change”, but I remember the term being “flu shot” in the past, and not “flu vaccine”. Either way, even the CDC has shown a table for years indicating that flu jabs range from ineffective to very ineffective, and then factor in my point about the source above. True effectiveness, if any, was certainly lower.

Even if you think there are people at the CDC who want to be very honest, it’s just not possible to accurately gauge the effectiveness of any real vaccine or simulated “vaccine” without knowing for sure that the test subject is directly exposed and also does not possess existing immunity of one form or another. I covered this aspect in a previous post:

---

Moving on to the introduction of the new paper, it includes this:

Surprisingly, little has changed with influenza vaccines since 1957 when they were first administered in US national vaccination programs. Over the years, influenza vaccines have never been able to elicit durable protective immunity against seasonal influenza virus strains, even against non-drifted strains. Although current influenza vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death to some degree, their effectiveness against clinically apparent infection is decidedly suboptimal, ranging from 14% to 60% over the past 15 influenza seasons. Furthermore, the duration of vaccine-elicited immunity is measured only in months. Current vaccines require annual re-vaccination with updated formulations that are frequently not precisely matched to circulating virus strains.

Note the same claims of “reduced severe disease, hospitalization, and death” that were trotted out in mid 2021 about the Corona “vaccines” as soon as it was obvious that they were not stopping infection or transmission. As I discussed in my previous post that I linked above, unless you know for sure the “vaccinated” were exposed and you are well versed in their immune systems, including their levels of vitamin D, zinc, and other key nutrients, you have no idea whether what you jabbed them with did much of anything.

As of 2022, after more than 60 years of experience with influenza vaccines, very little improvement in vaccine prevention of infection has been noted. As pointed out decades ago, and still true today, the rates of effectiveness of our best approved influenza vaccines would be inadequate for licensure for most other vaccine-preventable diseases.

This is pretty much a “Boom goes the dynamite” moment. Flu jabs would not qualify for approval if they were held to the same standards as the vaccine for measles, for example!! This perhaps adds some context to how there is supposedly a fully FDA approved version of Pfizer’s jab called COMIRNATY, but for various reasons it is supposedly unavailable (at least in the U.S.) and thus Moderna, J&J, and other still experimental “vaccines” can be given to people.

There is more in the text of the introduction, and again keep the source in mind and then give it some thought after reading it:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the rapid development and deployment of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has saved innumerable lives and helped to achieve early partial pandemic control. However, as variant SARS-CoV-2 strains have emerged, deficiencies in these vaccines reminiscent of influenza vaccines have become apparent. The vaccines for these two very different viruses have common characteristics: they elicit incomplete and short-lived protection against evolving virus variants that escape population immunity. Considering that vaccine development and licensure is a long and complex process requiring years of preclinical and clinical safety and efficacy data, the limitations of influenza and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines remind us that candidate vaccines for most other respiratory viruses have to date been insufficiently protective for consideration of licensure, including candidate vaccines against RSV, a major killer of infants and the elderly, parainfluenzaviruses, endemic coronaviruses, and many other “common cold” viruses that cause significant morbidity and economic loss.

So they directly admit “incomplete and short lived protection”. So no one was ever fully protected by the jabs, and whatever protection they had was soon gone. Of course this admission refutes the first sentence in that paragraph where they claim saving innumerable lives. If you only saved lives for a short time, and as part of that you had more deaths and horrible side effects than all other vaccines combined going back over 30 years, it’s a blatant lie to claim you saved lives overall. And excess death data for 2021 and 2022 from multiple highly jabbed countries show that lives have been lost, not saved.

They then go on to point out how it takes years to prove whether “vaccines” are “safe and effective”. Yet somehow we got “warp speed”-ed to “safe and effective” “vaccines” within 6 months, as I discussed in my previous post. And if you ever needed to be careful and take your time, an experimental gene therapy using mRNA to force your own cells to make spike proteins was the time to go very slow and focus instead on alternative treatments for saving lives in the short term. Instead alternative treatments were aggressively suppressed on a massive scale such that “Emergency Use Authorization” for the “vaccines” could be given, and in the process many people were effectively intentionally given death sentences.

The paper goes on to discuss how the human immune system treats different infections with different degrees of response, and then continues into the “Rethinking next-generation vaccines…” stuff which is somewhat lengthy and which I only skimmed. What I did not see was any consideration for enhancing natural immunity, whether through supplements, existing alternative low cost drugs, weight loss, and/or other methods that would improve people’s overall health and quality of life while also boosting their immunity.

Of course little fascist pharma shill Fauci would not want to encourage strategies that really improve people’s health at the cost of big pharma profits. By all means if you’ve got the time, read the whole thing thoroughly and tell me where I’m wrong. Click on the picture to link to the web version of the paper, and from there you can download a pdf if you like.

Clearly one goal of the paper is to start the campaign for new experimental “vaccines”, including more very risky mRNA gene therapy versions. It’s also pretty clear that it is designed as an excuse, or is otherwise CYA for the epic failure of the Corona “vaccines” released at the end of 2020. I suspect it may also be part of a plan to make Trump look bad, which is all the more reason that he needs abandon his strategy of claiming the jabs worked miracles and saved 100 million lives.

Be ready for a raft of “fact checks” on commentary about the Fauci paper.