It’s impossible to achieve immunization with intramuscular covid-19 vaccines because coronaviruses propagate intracellularly and in the mucus

Friday, January 14, 2022 by: Lance D Johnson

(Natural News) All vaccines for covid-19 are DEAD UPON ARRIVAL because the vaccines augment antibodies in the deltoid muscles, bypassing the mucus and the mucous membranes, where coronaviruses actually attach and replicate. Any measurement of antibodies post-vaccination is all for naught. These vaccine-induced antibodies are produced in the muscle tissue, far from its target environment in the body. Furthermore, these short-lived antibodies cannot neutralize coronaviruses because they cannot travel inside the cells, where coronaviruses propagate. A proper immune response to coronaviruses should include an equal response from the T-cells. Currently, this is best achieved through a full humoral and adaptive immune response via natural infection.

Prevailing immunity comes through natural infection, in the mucus of the nose, and includes a full spectrum, T cell response

Over 9.5 billion doses of mRNA vaccine were delivered into the arms of people in 2021, yet infections continue to multiply, with case counts surpassing numbers recorded in 2020. Masks, vaccines and isolation have failed to stop a class of viruses that are endemic, are always mutating, and are best neutralized in the mucus of the mouth, nose, digestive tract and lungs. This biological reality has been ignored by the fear-mongering media and public health officials who fail to understand how the immune system works.

Not only are there anti-viral treatments and anti-inflammatory protocols to assist the innate immune response, but there are ways to thin mucus and prevent the thickening of the mucus so that the body can properly detect and eliminate viral threats. There are phytochemicals that thin the mucus to help the body respond to infections. Herbs such as mullein (Verbascum thapsus L.) are beneficial for the innate immune response. Isolated saponins from mullein (Ilwensisaponin A and C) are proven anti-inflammatory, anti-viral agents. There are foods  that thicken mucus in the body, too. Upon infection, foods such as sugar and dairy can contribute to excess phlegm and complications in the respiratory tract.

Sterilizing immunity can only occur through natural infection because the exposure process must take place in the mucus as it was intended by nature. After the infection is neutralized, a durable response includes resident memory T and B cells along with neutralizing IgA antibodies. These forces stand ready where they are most needed, and they are poised to take on future infections in their early stages.

The human immune system is not a machine, programmed exclusively by vaccines

There is no doubt that the covid vaccine developers spent tremendous effort developing a correct code (for spike proteins), so the vaccines could elicit a response in humans and theoretically program immune-responsive cells. The vaccine makers also developed and optimized an efficient lipid nano-particle to deliver this program into the cells. Despite years of research into mRNA and lipid nano-particles, the vaccine makers missed the mark entirely with this vaccine because they did not study the best way to deliver this program to the human body. Vaccine makers needed more than a pinpoint solution; they needed more time to develop a holistic, full systems approach that focused on the delivery method. If the vaccine program is to be effective long term, it would need to target specific systems of the body that matter most for developing durable, longstanding immunity. Vaccine developers should be asking: How do we develop a durable immune response in the mucus, while equally activating T-cells?

Vaccine efficacy is promoted with absolutism, but a measurement of antibody levels in serum is only one small part of a much more intelligent system that includes mucus, mucous membranes, glands, the lymphatic system, cellular surveillance proteins, commensal microbes, T-cells, cytotoxic T-cells, and the T-Helper-1 and T-Helper-2 cells which work intracellularly to neutralize viruses like SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine makers trivialize the human immune system, giving off the impression that it is some programmable machine. The immune system is much more sophisticated than it is made out to be. The immune system contains many variables, and it differs from one person to the next.

Vaccine-induced antibodies are mostly useless because they circulate in the blood and away from the mucus – where they are actually needed. They also cannot work to the body’s benefit inside the cells, where virus replication actually occurs. As a general rule of thumb, antibodies are unable to bind with viruses that are replicating inside the cells. This is the job of the T-cells, which carry out the task of instructing infected cells to self-destruct.

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (Germany) recently wrote about this systemic vaccine fallibility in a paper titled, “Why intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination must fail.” His conclusions were corroborated by Professor Edward J. Steele (Australia) in an interview titled, “The Origins of Covid-19 & Why the Vaccines Don’t Work.” Professor Michael W. Russel (US) wrote about this topic in an article titled, “Mucosal Immunity in COVID-19: A Neglected but Critical Aspect of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.” Intramuscular vaccines will not work for mucosal viruses, whether for influenza viruses or SARS-CoV-2 and its endless variants.

Sources include: [PDF]

InternalJournal.frontiersin.corgPrevious :Pfizer CEO just admitted his company’s shots are useless, double jabbed have “very limited protection, if any” – so why are governments still paying for Pfizer shots and mandating them?

Legal Experts Respond to Supreme Court’s Split Decision on Vaccine Mandates

By Matthew Vadum January 13, 2022 Updated: January 14, 2022

The Supreme Court’s decision blocking the Biden administration’s private-sector vaccination regime was viewed positively by legal experts consulted by The Epoch Times but the other decision allowing the mandate requiring health care workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19 received a mixed reception.

The rulings came mid-afternoon on Jan. 13 after the high court heard oral arguments on Jan. 7 about the two separate mandates on an emergency basis. An array of business groups, along with Ohio, Missouri, Louisiana, and two dozen other states, asked for the federal mandates to be blocked.

The ruling allowing compulsory vaccination of health care workers is a “terrible” decision that is “going to result in people dying,” Robert Henneke of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told The Epoch Times.

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to block the mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), finding the challenge to it was likely to succeed. The rule forced employers with at least 100 employees –or most of the nation’s private workforce— to subject their employees to vaccinations aimed at preventing COVID-19 or to regular testing to detect it.

The decision split cleanly along partisan lines.

All Republican appointees on the high court–Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—were in the majority in the court’s opinion in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Department of Labor.

“Administrative agencies are creatures of statute” and “possess only the authority that Congress has provided,” the majority opinion states. “The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power.’ It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees.”

“Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID-19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather,” the opinion continues.

All the Democratic appointees–Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—would have allowed the mandate to go forward. Their dissenting opinion states that the court “seriously misapplies the applicable legal standards” and “stymies the Federal Government’s ability to counter the unparalleled threat that COVID–19 poses to our Nation’s workers.”

Henneke, who represented a coalition of Texas temporary staffing companies in the OSHA challenge, was pleased to win but wary of the reasoning adopted by the high court.

“Without the constitutional questions being taken on by the Supreme Court, we’ve won the battle today, but we still are left fighting the war,” he told The Epoch Times.

“It’s the correct outcome but unfortunately the majority opinion misses the forest for the trees because it doesn’t address except in touching reference … the bigger constitutional issues or defects in the Biden administration’s claim of authority.”

“By narrowly ruling on a very focused, textual statutory analysis of the OSHA statute, the court invites further creativity by this administration to look for other statutes to claim novel and unprecedented power.”

Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said he was pleased the OSHA ruling limits executive branch authority.

“This ruling has an importance that extends beyond the confines of these cases and may have a lasting effect on the executive branch’s behavior.”

Burling said the court recognized the importance of the separation of powers, “where the legislature passes the laws, where the executive [enforces] those laws, and the judiciary is the traditional arbiter of whether the law is being followed.”

“This is a really important thing for our liberty, as James Madison pointed out in the Federalist Papers, when the Constitution was being debated, that when you have these parts of government together in one person, that’s the very definition of tyranny.”

Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said the ruling “was a victory for the Constitution because it reminded the administrative state that its job is to interpret statutes, not to expand them.” Levey said he was happy the decision “emphasizes separation of powers … if you know there’s going to be an OSHA that’s going to be in charge of vaccine mandates, that’s got to come from Congress, not from the executive branch.”

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift lower court stays that had halted enforcement of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) emergency regulation, finding the government’s challenge to it would probably be successful. The rule, now in effect, requires more than 10 million employees at health care facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

In this case, all three liberal justices–Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor—sided with the government in the court’s opinion in Biden v. Missouri. Two conservatives, Roberts and Kavanaugh, also sided with the government.

The majority opinion states: “Congress did grant authority to the health secretary to promulgate” regulations he considers necessary to protect health and safety. Although a vaccination mandate is unprecedented, “we agree with the government that the Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him,” they added.

Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion that was joined by Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

The case is “only about whether [HHS] has the statutory authority to force health care workers, by coercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedure they do not want and cannot undo. Because the Government has not made a strong showing that Congress gave [HHS] that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal,” the dissent states.

Levey said the HHS ruling was a closer call than the OSHA ruling.

“You can always make an argument about how somehow this is regulating occupational safety and Health, as the court said, where this is really about regulating public health, and that’s not within OSHA’s power.”

But with the HHS case, “it was a closer fit,” Levey said.

“Anyone listening to that argument would have said, ‘yeah, when I think of regulating health care facilities and health care workers, this seems like a natural fit, whereas the other was just commandeering employers to do something that really has no relationship to employment.”

But Henneke was critical of the HHS mandate ruling.

“I think it’s a terrible decision, and I’m fearful that it’s going to be immediately disastrous and disruptive to our healthcare industry, and it’s going to result in people dying.”

The ruling “gives far too much deference to a broad and vague reading of an ambiguous statute” related to HHS that the Biden administration claimed gave this authority to the federal government.

The decision will inflict “damage” on the health care system and will lead to “layoffs and staffing shortages,” which will make things “dangerous and damaging,” especially in rural settings.

“Rural areas already have a very difficult time in obtaining sufficient workers to provide staffing for rural health care needs,” Henneke said.

“Even if it’s only 10 to 15 percent of the workforce, that has at this point not taken the COVID vaccine, eliminating that staffing in short order from a rural Texas nursing home,” will create serious problems.

Zachary Stieber contributed to this article.

SStevenC5 mins agoVote up0Vote down

I did not see the oral arguments,
but the comments made by the demlib judges show they have no clue what is going on.
Did the lawyers against the mandates show the numbers that the jabs don’t work,
or the harm they are causing?
Did they mention the Nuremberg code?
Our Constitution?
The lack of testing?
The lack of informed consent?
The lack of details for the approval process? etc…
Let’s go Brandon

Lleslieannbrown19611 hours agoVote up+2Vote down

“Challenges” would have been successful or not. Seems like a weenie way to deal with the mandates. SCOTUS’s responsibility is to determine constitutionality, not whether or not a lower court challenge will be successful. I’m very disappointed. Should have overturned both, period. All they really did was send back down.

WWilliam Bell1 hours agoVote up+3Vote down

Pondering whether an agency’s authorization permits them to inflict tyranny, rather than whether the Constitution allows the Federal Government to inflict tyranny. Now, isn’t that creative and appalling jurisprudence?!

North Korean Hackers Stole Millions from Cryptocurrency Startups Worldwide

January 14, 2022 Ravie Lakshmanan

Operators associated with the Lazarus sub-group BlueNoroff have been linked to a series of cyberattacks targeting small and medium-sized companies worldwide with an aim to drain their cryptocurrency funds, in what’s yet another financially motivated operation mounted by the prolific North Korean state-sponsored actor.

Russian cybersecurity company Kaspersky, which is tracking the intrusions under the name “SnatchCrypto,” noted that the campaign has been running since at 2017, adding the attacks are aimed at startups in the FinTech sector located in China, Hong Kong, India, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, the U.A.E., the U.S., Ukraine, and Vietnam.

“The attackers have been subtly abusing the trust of the employees working at targeted companies by sending them a full-featured Windows backdoor with surveillance functions, disguised as a contract or another business file,” the researchers said. “In order to eventually empty the victim’s crypto wallet, the actor has developed extensive and dangerous resources: complex infrastructure, exploits and malware implants.”

BlueNoroff, and the larger Lazarus umbrella, are known for deploying a diverse arsenal of malware for a multi-pronged assault on businesses to illicitly procure funds, including relying on a mix of advanced phishing tactics and sophisticated malware, for the sanctions-hit North Korean regime and generate revenue for its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

If anything, these cyber offensives are paying off big time. According to a new report published by blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis, the Lazarus Group has been linked to seven attacks on cryptocurrency platforms that extracted almost $400 million worth of digital assets in 2021 alone, up from $300 million in 2020.

Cryptocurrency Hackers

“These attacks targeted primarily investment firms and centralized exchanges […] to siphon funds out of these organizations’ internet-connected ‘hot’ wallets into DPRK-controlled addresses,” the researchers said. “Once North Korea gained custody of the funds, they began a careful laundering process to cover up and cash out” through mixers to obscure the trail.

Documented malicious activity involving the nation-state actor have take the form of cyber-enabled heists against foreign financial institutions, notably the SWIFT banking network hacks in 2015-2016, with recent campaigns resulting in the deployment of a backdoor called AppleJeus that poses as a cryptocurrency trading platform to plunder and transfer money to their accounts.

Cryptocurrency Hackers

The SnatchCrypto attacks are no different in that they concoct elaborate social engineering schemes to build trust with their targets by posing as legitimate venture capitalist firms, only to use bait the victims into opening malware-laced documents that retrieve a payload designed to run a malicious executable received over an encrypted channel from a remote server.

An alternative method used to trigger the infection chain is the use of Windows shortcut files (“.LNK”) to fetch the next-stage malware, a Visual Basic Script, that then acts a jump off point to execute a series of intermediary payloads, before installing a full-featured backdoor that comes with “enriched” capabilities to capture screenshots, record keystrokes, steal data from Chrome browser, and execute arbitrary commands.

Cryptocurrency Hackers

The ultimate goal of the attacks, however, is to monitor financial transactions of the compromised users and steal cryptocurrency. Should a potential target use a Chrome extension like Metamask to manage crypto wallets, the adversary stealthily moves to locally replace the main component of the extension with a fake version that alerts the operators every time a large transfer is kicked off to another account.

To siphon the funds, malicious code injection is performed to intercept and modify the transaction details on demand. “The attackers modify not only the recipient [wallet] address, but also push the amount of currency to the limit, essentially draining the account in one move,” the researchers explained.

“Cryptocurrency is a heavily targeted sector when it comes to cybercrime due to the decentralized nature of the currencies and the fact that, unlike with credit card or bank transfers, the transaction happens quickly and is impossible to reverse,” Erich Kron, security awareness advocate at KnowBe4, said in a statement.

“Nation-states, especially those under strict tariffs or other financial restrictions, can benefit greatly by stealing and manipulating cryptocurrency. Many times, a cryptocurrency wallet can contain multiple types of cryptocurrency, making them a very appealing target,” Kron added.