Oh goody, another Pfizer shot is on the way. From Joseph Mercola at lewrockwell.com:
While a third COVID booster shot started rolling out in late September 2021,1 and people have been bullied into getting it, that booster is no different from the first two doses. It’s not specific against Omicron, which is rapidly overtaking other variants and currently accounts for 95% of all COVID cases in the U.S.2
A number of studies have already shown that the COVID shots offer very limited protection against the Omicron variant,3,4 yet the guidance doesn’t change. “Get the booster,” is the universal recommendation, but that’s like telling everyone to use a flu vaccine from one or even two seasons ago. Why take another dose of something that is significantly mismatched to the strains in circulation?
Omicron Makes Vaccine Mandates Obsolete
As noted by Dr. Luc Montagnier and Jed Rubenfeld, a lawyer, in a January 9, 2022, Wall Street Journal opinion piece,5 “Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Obsolete,” there’s no evidence the COVID shots reduce infections from this rapidly spreading variant.
“It would be irrational, legally indefensible and contrary to the public interest for government to mandate vaccines absent any evidence that the vaccines are effective in stopping the spread of the pathogen they target,” Montagnier and Rubenfeld write, “Yet that’s exactly what’s happening here …
As of Jan. 1, Omicron represented more than 95% of U.S. COVID cases, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Because some of Omicron’s 50 mutations are known to evade antibody protection, because more than 30 of those mutations are to the spike protein used as an immunogen by the existing vaccines, and because there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading …
The Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) that the right to refuse medical treatment could be overcome when society needs to curb the spread of a contagious epidemic. At Friday’s oral argument, all the [Supreme Court] justices acknowledged that the federal mandates rest on this rationale.
But mandating a vaccine to stop the spread of a disease requires evidence that the vaccines will prevent infection or transmission (rather than efficacy against severe outcomes like hospitalization or death).
As the World Health Organization puts it, ‘if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.’6 For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence. The little data we have suggest the opposite.”