“If that’s not a wakeup call, I don’t know what is,” lamented a senior Biden regime official to Axios, which reported that Pfizer’s Chinese Virus shots are unable to protect against the latest “variants.”
Conducted by researchers from the Mayo Clinic, the study looked at the effectiveness of both the Pfizer and Moderna shots from January through July. It revealed that the two injections provide lower-than-advertised protection against the Fauci Flu – meaning untold millions of people were tricked into taking quack “medicine.”
While the two shots apparently held some effectiveness through July, the paper explains that immunity drops precipitously after that. This is why the government is now pushing new “boosters,” which those who took the first shots may need to get seasonally for the rest of their lives.
Interestingly, the effectiveness of Moderna’s shot was even worse, but only in some states such as Florida where it was found to provide about 50 percent lower protection compared to a person “fully vaccinated” with Pfizer’s injection.
“Although it has yet to be peer-reviewed, the study raises serious questions about both vaccines’ long-term effectiveness, particularly Pfizer’s,” Axios reported.
This is all an excuse to push a never-ending stream of “booster” shots
The study is inconclusive concerning whether its results signify that the shots lose their effectiveness to all forms of the Chinese Virus over time, or only to “delta” and other variants. Perhaps a combination of factors is at play.
“Based on the data that we have so far, it is a combination of both factors,” the study’s lead author, Venky Soundararajan, is quoted as saying.
“The Moderna vaccine is likely – very likely – more effective than the Pfizer vaccine in areas where Delta is the dominant strain, and the Pfizer vaccine appears to have a lower durability of effectiveness.”
Soundararajan and his team are already working on a follow-up study that they say will aim to differentiate between the durability of the Moderna and Pfizer injections with regard to the delta variant.
Some in the media are already decrying the research, claiming that it should not be taken seriously because it has not yet been peer-reviewed. The same standards do not apply to the original drug trials that got the jabs into circulation in the first place, of course.
Meanwhile, the Biden regime is continuing to aggressively push the “hesitant” to roll up a sleeve at “warp speed” so the world can enter the “new normal.” Until everyone complies, the talking-heads on television are likely to continue making threats and spreading fear.
“My question is how do they determine efficacy,” wrote one commenter at Zero Hedge. “I suspect those numbers are simply pulled out of their *** to claim more shots are needed. Just more lies on top of lies.”
“Once again this is all a lie,” wrote another. “There is no, and has been no, immunity created by the jab. Its mRNA codes only for the ACE2 spike protein. This is then created at great concentration in your cellular cytoplasm and released into the blood, where your immune system recognizes that it is not ‘self’ so it makes an antibody against it.”
“This is initially IgA, and then the system fails as the ACE2 protein is not a sufficient stimulus to convert to the full virus / strain variants, etc. – only the ACE2, which is all they wanted to hide (the bioweapon).”
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.