The CDC published an article about “science” and the Delta variant. It is found here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html.
While the CDC’s strong language suggests that:
- The Delta variant is more contagious.
- Vaccinations cause lesser illness.
- Unvaccinated exhibit greater transmission.
- Fully vaccinated have shorter infectious periods,
Their cited references DO NOT SUPPORT these declarations.
When read beyond the headlines, many of their cited references disagree with the allegations made on the CDC website. Please evaluate them for yourself as only brief highlights are given below.
**And, as an aside, I use the term “vaccine” under duress. I personally consider all the mRNA technology gene therapy/genetic engineering and NOT vaccine technology. The evaluated sources call them “vaccines,” so to avoid confusion I kept the terminology uniform. It’s basically prion disease if you want to get technical.**
Let’s get started.
Reference #1 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891)
These authors state that vaccines are efficacious at preventing symptomatic disease. This does not mean that it prevents asymptomatic infection or stops transmission. It goes on to state, “…it appears that strains with mutations at that site [one of which is the Delta variant] may have increased replication, which leads to higher viral loads and increased transmission.” While vaccinated people are not always symptomatic, they can still transmit virions. Further, while the CDC claims that vaccines are effective, this study explicitly states, “Data on the effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines against clinical outcomes with this variant have been limited.” The CDC asserts that vaccines prevent death or severe disease, and this study also claims, “The numbers of cases and follow-up periods are currently insufficient for the estimation of vaccine effectiveness against severe disease, including hospitalization and death.”
Reference #2 (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2108891)
This source is fascinating as it is a direct contradiction to the pro-investigational vaccine paradigm. This MMWR was from Barnstable County, Massachusetts, where 74% of the outbreak population was fully vaccinated at least two weeks prior to this gathering. A total of 5 people were hospitalized with symptomatic disease, for which 4 were vaccinated, leaving 1 unvaccinated hospitalization of that remaining 26%, nobody died. Does this not cause concerns for immune escape, vaccine failure, or potentially increased susceptibility in the vaccinated due to non-lethal antigenic pressures?
Reference #3 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295)
The author has glaring conflicts of interest in Sanofi and Roche that both provide covid-19 testing or vaccine manufacturing. They cite using up to the 45-cycle threshold for testing when we know that accuracy is diminished after approximately 22-25 cycles. How did they account for false positives? Those that developed symptoms within 14 days of vaccination were excluded from the study. While vaccinated were collected from 5 study sites, the unvaccinated were from a single site uncovering systemic bias as testing methods differed. The study also states that “Vaccine-breakthrough patients were significantly more likely to be asymptomatic… Notably, in contrast to existing studies that showed lower viral load in vaccinated patients, initial viral load indicated by PCR Ct values was similar between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with B.1.617.2.” This statement solidifies the fact that vaccinated cohorts can still transmit covid-19 without outward symptoms, which should be concerning when considering mass vaccination to “protect the vulnerable.” The CDC ignores this fact and publishes that “fully vaccinated people with symptomatic breakthrough infections, can transmit it to others” when this clearly states that vaccine breakthrough patients were asymptomatic. Logically, the asymptomatic person with a high viral load is more of a risk to vulnerable populations than those with symptoms that would typically avoid their daily routines. Illness can prevent people from going to work and infecting others, but asymptomatic illness encourages this.
Reference #4 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050)
This author has a direct competing interest as he sits on advisory boards for covid vaccines with AstraZeneca and Pfizer. Table One excludes the unvaccinated cohort from the dataset. While rates of infection are higher in the unvaccinated, deaths and hospitalizations are unclear. What is deciphered is that Delta is contagious, for which the CDC agrees. However, the CDC further asserts that “Vaccines are playing a crucial role in limiting spread of the virus and minimizing severe disease.” Interesting to note: “The emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern has slowed progress against the pandemic in three distinct ways: (i) by increasing transmissibility and the disease’s reproduction number; (ii) by increasing immune escape and diminishing vaccine effectiveness; and (iii) by increasing the virulence of SARS-CoV-2 infection.” This is a direct contraindication of the CDC’s statement of vaccine efficacy.
Reference #5 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.07.21260122)
This study concludes that the antigenic changes with the Delta variant display “higher viral replication… increased transmissibility or could exhibit an increased propensity for escape from host immunity, and therefore pose an increased risk to global public health.” This agrees with the fact that Delta is more contagious in all populations, including those vaccinated.
Reference #6 (https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-637724/v1)
This source relays concerns about transmission between healthcare workers in populations of highly vaccinated. It further explicitly states, “the Delta variant shows 8 fold approximately reduced sensitivity to vaccine-elicited antibodies compared to wild type.” The CDC completely ignores this information yet cites it as a reference? This does not support the push for vaccination programs.
Reference #7 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.19.21260808)
This article states, “data are consistent with the potential ability of fully vaccinated individuals to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.” Though this source claims less lethality for vaccinated cohorts, the article does not separate the data from vaccinated versus vaccinated. Further, it shows the death rate and hospitalizations are lower as compared to the variants otherwise specified. The CDC reverses this by publishing, “patients infected with the Delta variant were more likely to be hospitalized than patients infected with Alpha or the original virus strains.” This is false.
Reference #8 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.28.21259420)
This study does not have transparent data to review. Further, it considers only symptomatic cases for which the large control group has symptoms but covid negative status. Are these vaccinated more susceptible to other viral illnesses due to immune system modulation by the current vaccines? Why are hospitalization and death in the same category? Where is the information on those with prior illness or unvaccinated? Furthermore, these groups are only monitored for 14 days post-vaccine #1 and 7 days post-vaccine #2. This is a menial period to make sweeping judgments for “highly effective” per the CDC. Is the theoretical 14-day window an advantageous endpoint?
Reference #9 (https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3861566)
This study has a very small sample. Its data reflects a positive association with comorbidities; increased delta cases in vaccinated compared to other variants (due to the retrospective design); increased supplemental oxygen demands; and lower ICU admission/death rate compared to different variants. It also raises concerns of “mutations particularly in key areas of the immunodominant spike protein… that [has] been associated with increased transmissibility, evasion of immunity from infection and vaccination.” This is contrary to the push for vaccinations at the conclusion of the paper. It is no surprise that they declare conflicts of interest due to personal fees from Sanofi and Roche.
Reference #10 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.31.21261387)
This paper starts by saying, “The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant and its sublineages (B.1.617.2, AY.1, AY.2, AY.3; ) can cause high viral loads, are highly transmissible, and contain mutations that confer partial immune escape.” This statement is unfavorable for current vaccination strategies. The authors further outline “similar viral loads in nasal swabs, irrespective of vaccine status, during a time of high and increasing prevalence of the Delta variant. Infectious SARS-CoV-2 was isolated from 51 of 55 specimens (93%) with Ct <25 from both vaccinated and unvaccinated persons, indicating that most individuals with Ct values in this range (Wilson 95% CI 83%-97%) shed infectious virus regardless of vaccine status.” Ironically, this study closes with, “it is essential for public health policy to encourage vaccination while also planning for contingencies, including diminished long-term protection.” This statement is contradictory to the entire study and an utterly unjustified declaration.
This is the most interesting citation as it shows data that concludes increased cases in unvaccinated populations but more deaths in the fully vaccinated population overall. This UK data is alarming as the case-fatality rates make Delta more lethal in the vaccinated population. Vaccinated Delta cases (28,773) with vaccinated deaths within 28 days (224) is a case fatality of 0.78%; however, unvaccinated Delta cases (121,402) with unvaccinated deaths within 28 days (165) is a case fatality rate of 0.14%. This is a five-fold increased risk of death for the vaccinated population. While supportive in claims of contagion, it is contrary to assertions that “Unvaccinated people remain the greatest concern,” as stated by the CDC. Looks like the vaccinated should be priority as they fare worse…?
Reference #12 (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01358-1)
This study asserts, “the effect of vaccination (at least 28 days after first or second dose) was to reduce the risk of hospital admission” and further evaluates “that there was no evidence of a differential vaccine effect on hospital admissions among those first testing positive.” With a disclaimer at the end: “Given the observational nature of these data, estimates of vaccine effectiveness need to be interpreted with caution.”
This limited study does not provide raw data to compare the severity of disease and death in different groups based on vaccination status. It also poses a disclaimer stating that it was “not possible to estimate vaccine effectiveness against severe disease.” This is, again, a contradiction to the CDC’s claim that “the vaccine still provides strong protection against serious illness and death.”
Reference #14 (https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058)
This study evaluates healthcare workers, PPE, and viral load with symptoms. It does not consider hospitalizations, deaths, oxygen demands, or “severity” outcomes but illustrates vaccinated populations have less RNA viral load and marginally fewer self-reported sick days. The authors further guess, “The mechanisms by which vaccination attenuates Covid-19 are largely unknown, but the effect is probably due to recall of immunologic memory responses that reduce viral replication and accelerate the elimination of virally infected cells. The biologic plausibility of these benefits is supported by the observation of similar phenomena in studies of other vaccines.” These assumptions seek to compare novel mRNA technology to the traditional vaccine strategies, which are entirely different. How can we draw conclusions of investigational-phase technology from the studies of unrelated products?
Reference #15 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.03.21258293)
These authors state a shift in the dominant variant and increase in the positive cases but do not determine hospitalizations or deaths. An increase in positive cases is consistent with CDC’s statement that Delta is more contagious.
Again, you are the only person that can make the decision to consent to an investigational product that is heavily promoted by entities indebted to pharmaceutical giants. Beware of the conflicts of interest. The gatekeeper to informed consent is your own ability to draw conclusions from the data. This is easier said than done in the environment of today when “the data” is concealed, buried, and wrongfully interpreted by those in power positions.
I will leave you with some questions to consider:
How are government agencies allowed to make statements that are not grounded in research?
Why aren’t our investigational journalists critically reviewing these agencies?
If EUA products were such a good intervention, why do we need to mandate them?
Who is making the decision to mandate? What are their credentials?
If EUA products were so safe, why is liability from harms completely removed?
If health entities really cared about health, wouldn’t they have already mandated clean drinking water for the entire planet?
Science demands criticism and discourse, why are questions/thoughts labeled “misinformation” if they do not clearly promote “vaccine” uptake?
Do not be coerced and please keep a questioning mind. The only way to grow is through discussion. If something was truly lifesaving do you really think that Big pHARMa would “mandate” every person on the planet access “for free?” Because that’s what they do, right? What’s not to love about violating someone’s bodily autonomy and creating barriers to employment, goods, and services. Totally normal. Nothing to see here, right? I’ve said this since April 2020: the next currency is compliance. We all need to stand up against that. Once your ability to make independent decisions about your body is gone, so is your life. That is not a future I wish upon my children.
Shalom, light, and love…