The aggressive push to vaccinate all available candidates has slowed, and we see the next onslaught bifurcating – the new strategy is both inoculating our children and recommending booster shots.
It’s logical that some sense of duty mixed with buying into the current medspeak would lead to these outcomes. The leap of faith necessary to accept that these gene therapies and immunization products are safe sets the stage for expanding the usage, with or without proper evaluation.
You’d think that mainstream authorities would not challenge this perspective, but actually, some prominent medical resources are questioning the need for booster shots.
Reuters just published interviews with a dozen experts refuting the need for additional coronavirus inoculations after the initial applications, regardless of the manufacturers’ enthusiasm. For example, Kate O’Brien, director of WHO’s Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, stated, “We don’t see the data yet that would inform a decision about whether or not booster doses are needed.”
O’Brien reported that WHO is assembling an objective panel to review the findings independent of the influences of Big Pharma, since health specialists should be formulating policy, not drug companies.
While Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla opined that people will need an additional shot each year to ensure immunity, Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the CDC, declared, “There is zero, and I mean zero, evidence to suggest that that is the case… It’s completely inappropriate to say that we’re likely to need an annual booster, because we have no idea what the likelihood of that is.”
These are director-level leaders from WHO and CDC — more credible, you’d think, than those who stand to profit from instituting regular injections for coronavirus.
Even Dr. Fauci, ardent vaccine enthusiast, quotes recent research on the Moderna and Pfizer products, predicting a “cushion effect” against variants, as high levels of antibodies and T cells conveyed immunity he expects to last. He said “it’s quite possible” that boosters won’t be necessary.
The point is, we have to take the opinions of those who stand to enrich themselves with a grain of salt – I’m not saying they are deceiving us, I have no way of knowing that – I just understand that even if their motives are relatively pure, there has to be a subconscious compulsion to promote their drugs.
The problem with defaulting to the harder scientists is that they too have bought into the vaccination hypothesis, as opposed to seeking a natural way to develop and maintain immunity – in fact, they think of vaccination as natural, since it theoretically kickstarts a natural immune process.
The issue is that the reductionist viewpoint that permeates medicine implies that these physiological changes happen independent of other metabolic processes, and of course this cannot be true. Body chemistry is interdependent, so any change risks distortion or may create unwanted sequelae.
And so the discussion rages on. We must engage, and formulate our own philosophical and scientific reasoning. If you had to debate your side of this argument, how would you do?
Stay away from dogma, and see if you can construct a ten second, thirty second, one minute and two minute statement on this vital subject matter. You may be called into such conversation, and being prepared to make your case could be a determining factor in helping someone make a good decision for themselves and their families. Your thought leadership may be pivotal – if not you, then who?
Dennis Perman DC, for The Masters Circle Global
PS Only one place to get identity-driven brain-based wellness coaching – www.themasterscircle.com.
Click The Image Below and Stop Guessing About Your Practice Growth