The COVID Narrative is Facing Increasing Worldwide Challenge

The protected (injected) need to be protected from the unprotected (uninjected) by forcing the unprotected (uninjected) to use the protection (injection) that didn't protect the protected (injected).” Ryan Christian, The Last American Vagabond Podcast (September 24, 2021)

The bridge too far in the COVID narrative for medical and science professionals worldwide has finally arrived: denying natural immunity's important role as an integral part of herd immunity to bring this COVID-19 pandemic to heel.

The CDC's disregard of full-spectrum natural or innate immunity established in the 100 million COVID recovered patients provided the much needed wake-up call. Dr Fauci declared 70 percent of the population was required to reach herd immunity before the arrest of COVID was possible. But the only pathway to reaching 70 percent was via vaccination, completely setting aside the 100 million COVID-recovered people who now possess the most durable immunity of all. This scientifically irrational declaration became the line many medical professionals could not cross.

The volumes of evidence supporting natural immunity from the COVID recovered as robust, durable, and full-spectrum, and thereby superior to inoculated immunity from vaccines, especially mRNA vaccines, cannot be overcome no matter the contrary media campaign of relentless repetition by less-trusted voices.

Traditional vaccines strive to mimic natural immunity by injecting attenuated virus (usually dead), triggering an immune response of antibodies to neutralize the invading virus. COVID vaccines function differently, using mRNA that uses pre-programmed (message) RNA to manufacturer and replicate a single spike protein identified in the SARS-CoV-2 genome to combat COVID. Instead of encountering the actual virus and allowing the body to determine what antibodies it needs to produce for the fight, the mRNA dictates the specific spike protein needed to do battle and repeatedly replicates that single spike protein, and only that spike protein.

While innate immunity in the COVID recovered is long-term, perhaps even lifelong, mRNA biotechnology is proving to have a viability limit of approximately six months before it becomes inactive/inert, leaving the host – you – unprotected from COVID infection. For some, additional vulnerability ensues because the trillions of spike proteins the jabs did manufacture while still active destroyed lesser functional antibodies it encountered, caused micro-clotting in small blood cells in the lining of hearts and lungs, crossed the blood brain barrier causing neurological complications, and potentially other health consequences because the clinical trials necessary for ascertaining longer-term effects have not been done.

The CDC's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is now reporting over 700,000 adverse reactions after receiving COVID vaccines, 66,000 hospitalizations, and over 15,000 deaths. The average number of vaccine-related deaths reported to VAERS each year hovers around 150. COVID vaccines have reported more deaths in six months than all the vaccines combined since VAERS' inception in 1986. Contrary to fact-blockers claims that VAERS reports are unsubstantiated, if the report has a VAERS number associated with it, that means it has been verified as a legitimate filing.

Relative to COVID vaccines, we are the clinical trial(s). As such, the American public is required by law to provide informed consent once fully, knowingly informed relative to the associated risks, and of available remedies/protocols should an adverse event occur. Informed knowing consent is a fundamental requirement when participating in any medical experiment, and the COVID vaccines are no exception.

Americans are entitled to a higher standard of transparency relative to these injections as they are the most meaningful stakeholders in their outcomes. As such, there is less than robust surveillance, tracking, documenting, and analysis of the massive amount of data that has been accumulating for the past 19 months, including redefining traditional methodologies that compromise this specific COVID pandemic data compilation, such as lumping COVID deaths in with those of pneumonia and influenza, a curious thing to do for a novel lethal global pandemic.

Instead, computer modeling provides subjective conclusions that inform mitigation policies, rather than actual objective data sets that would provide very different conclusions. Computer modeling is too often biased fiction based on subjective inputs to create desired output. In the case of COVID, modeling has been primarily used to induce an 18-month-long mass psychosis as part of an ongoing choreographed media campaign of irrational fear and confusion, all components of effective psychosocial engineering.

Protecting the Protected from the Unprotected, or Protecting the Unprotected from the Protected?

That said, mainstream reports are beginning to note that, along with increasing numbers of breakthrough cases of COVID-19 in vaccinated people, breakthrough skepticism of the COVID-19 narrative is also increasing, as well it should. That is because “vaccinated or not” isn't the real problem. Common sense dictates that if you are vaccinated, you are protected. The person who is not vaccinated is the one at risk, not you. That's how it works, yet we have been conversely convinced that somehow that isn't how it works. We can't explain why, other than to admit the vaccines are not as effective at stopping infection as we were originally led to believe. But if that is true, why should unvaccinated people get the jab, too? That is where things get entirely incoherent. Yet people don't seem to notice, instead are triggered emotionally and judgmentally against the stubborn noncompliant.

No one seemed to notice, let alone question, the COVID narrative morphing from jabs providing protection against infection and transmission to strictly protection against serious illness, hospitalization, and death, but that claim is proving ultimately false as well.

Media consistently reports that the un-jabbed are the villains occupying the majority of hospital beds, and that is provably untrue. However, to confirm this for ourselves would require opening our minds and challenging that information by investigating our local hospitals and county-health databases, looking at reports to the contrary both nation- and worldwide, including querying the data itself and how it is collected and compiled.

Why we choose not to look at this publicly available information, instead settling for narrowly focused doom-and-gloom media narratives, is the real pandemic – one indicative of mass psychosis and hysteria as the result of deliberately manufactured fear to illicit specific collective behaviors from each of us, such as accepting mandatory experimental injections for a disease 99.97 percent of us will survive (and have) should we become infected. Never mind too many of us are standing idle as this reckless, completely unjustified insanity comes for our children.

Where it stands today is perfectly put by Ryan Christian: “The protected (injected) need to be protected from the unprotected (uninjected) by forcing the unprotected (uninjected) to use the protection (injection) that didn't protect the protected (injected).”

PCR Testing Gets Pulled

Another stunning admission is the FDA finally prohibiting the use of the currently approved PCR testing as of January 1, 2022, due to its unreliability. It has directed testing labs to switch to one test that can detect and distinguish between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. One could infer from this directive that the current PCR test cannot distinguish between the two. To date, no replacement test has been authorized or approved by the FDA, so the current acknowledged unreliable PCR tests continue to deliver positive cases even though as many as 90 percent of the results could be false positives and not true cases at all.

Even though the FDA acknowledges the problematic PCR test, discussion of this incredulous disclosure is largely censored from the public domain by broadcast and social media. And therein lies the most incoherent COVID controversy of all. The public is denied access to much of the otherwise powerful data that continues to proliferate, regardless of the establishment's efforts to keep us from it.

It is not misinformation being censored, it is missed-information, and it most definitely provides illuminating counterarguments, compelling evidence, and important potentially life-saving information for public consideration. Lack of transparency by censoring missed-information negatively impacts average people in far larger numbers than full disclosure ever could.

Is it any wonder people believe a sinister collaboration has developed between government, health officials, and the media, including social media, to censor information not sanctioned and/or disruptive to an official COVID narrative? It is textbook psychosocial engineering designed specifically to create mass psychosis by stimulating sustained exaggerated fear over a disease that 99.97 percent of the human population survives.

Early Treatment of COVID – Fact or Fiction? You Decide.

At the heart of the unfathomable censorship are health authorities, hospitalists, and many practicing physicians who reject therapeutics to combat early COVID-19. Tens of thousands of highly credentialed doctors, medical professionals and researchers, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), have converged to combine their expertise in early treatment of COVID-19, saving countless lives in every age and risk cohort, documenting all their successes and openly sharing it worldwide for humanity's benefit. Yet most of it is not only censored from public accessibility; it is ignored by the medical community at large, including professional associations and medical boards. What possible downside exists for not employing all therapeutic protocols, especially considering that one-size-fits-all is infeasible when it comes to the practice of medicine? (

The combined results of successful early treatments of COVID are a welcome game changer, affordable and implementable to scale immediately. So why is this medically rational protocol of early therapeutics being so aggressively censored, even outlawed in some countries, and in the U.S., outright punished in some cases by medical boards and healthcare systems?

The two primary controversial treatments to date are Hydroxychloriquin (HCQ) and Ivermectin, both low-cost anti-virals that have been FDA approved for decades for malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and parasitical conditions. It turns out that many parasites operate functionally similar to viruses (neither can survive on their own and must join with living hosts to replicate and survive).

Perhaps that is why the CDC's guidelines for refugees coming to the U.S. require that each entrant be given two days of Ivermectin before entry, and an additional two more days of Ivermectin after entry, but before being released into the interior. Nor are these refugees and immigrants (legal or illegal) required to get any of the jabs before release into the U.S. What is the justification for this policy?

The WHO has designated both Ivermectin and HCQ as “essential,” including them in its priority list of the world's most essential drugs. Ivermectin won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2015 for its extraordinary beneficial contribution to humanity's well-being worldwide. Most of the countries using Ivermectin and HCQ (India, Africa, and Indonesia) to combat COVID are faring far better than countries that ignore them as therapeutics.

For therapeutic purposes against COVID, both these anti-virals are supplemented with established doses of Vitamin C, D, zinc, and often include Budesonide (an inhaler), antibiotics, Prednizone (a steroid for reducing inflammation) and aspirin to prevent clotting, reported to be found in biopsies, tissue samples, and during autopsies, in small blood vessels of the lungs and heart from COVID-19 (including long-haul) and from adverse reactions after mRNA “vaccines.”

Even with the substantial body of evidence provided via global clinical observation using different cocktails off-label of FDA approved drugs in early treatment of COVID, the media has labeled Ivermectin a horse paste, unsuitable and dangerous for human consumption. What it leaves out of that foolish reporting is that, while Ivermectin does have an Ivermectin version for horses, it has versions for dogs and a variety of living species, including humans. There are many approved drugs that benefit multiple species.

The FDA, to date, has refused to give either Ivermectin or HCQ Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for treatment of COVID-19, claiming neither drug has completed the extensive trials proving its efficacy as a treatment. Nor will the FDA approve either drug for “off-label” use to treat COVID-19. Therein lies the presumed authority by state and private medical boards to threaten licenses of doctors who do prescribe them as such, even though the medical world prescribes all manner of drugs for off-label purposes, and doing so is considered best practices in most cases. Let that sink in.

The FDA is providing EUAs for three new mRNA vaccines of lesser dosage for mass distribution to ages <12, and actually licensing one adult vaccine (Cominuarty, a.k.a. Pfizer BioNTech's), none of which have completed the required clinical trials, either. Ivermectin and HCQ have been approved for other uses for decades with a proven safety track record, including millions of successful outcomes reported in clinical observations using both drugs in the treatment of COVID-19, worldwide. What possible downside exists for giving these therapeutics a full-throttle green light?

There is no excuse for such medical-protocol resistance, especially when patients, who are hospitalized with severe symptomatic COVID-19 and ventilated have an 80 percent chance of dying. That bears repeating: According to the CDC, 80 percent of patients who are intubated die. Even knowing this astronomical risk factor for hospitalized patients with severe COVID, unless severely symptomatic, struggling to breathe, or are otherwise too compromised to care for themselves, patients are advised to isolate at home until they recover or their condition worsens. Why not avail patients of various sequences of drugs with clinically-proven benefits that for so many include faster recovery, reduction of severity of COVID, hospitalizations, and death?

Not only is it is well-established that once patients are placed on a ventilator, chances for recovery dramatically decrease, making another invaluable goal of early treatments prophylactic to protect from becoming infected, or at least from becoming symptomatic and capable of transmitting to others. Something the mRNA vaccines are supposed to do, but are failing to deliver on according to reports from Israel, the United Kingdom, and increasingly more data here in the U.S., all of whom have a high rate of vaccination among our populations.

Like every other treatment protocol, these are not magic and may not work for every case. But does it make any sense that healthcare officials, doctors, and professionals refuse to provide any of these early treatments that are proving demonstrably successful across the globe for many cases? And why would hospitalists not endorse such protocols to prevent the much-feared stress on hospital resources?

Healthcare Providers and Practitioners Face Persecution

Worse is the bizarre aggression with which healthcare officials are threatening, bullying, and penalizing decent doctors for prescribing these low-cost effective early treatments of COVID-19. Both doctor and patient have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Yet some U.S. doctors are threatened with the loss of their licenses if they prescribe Ivermectin or HQC, even in tandem with other supplements. In some cases, they are risking their livelihoods as doctors for merely speaking to patients about such therapeutics, or warning their patients of the risks associated with the jabs. Instead of being appreciated for their prudence, these doctors are being accused of spreading misinformation, when the true misinformation being spread is that only vaccines will stop the pandemic. Why would the public not consider this medical tyranny?

This aggression and professional bullying is also arguably medical malpractice based on the harm caused, including death. And the constitutional violations make one dizzy, whether against the physicians, practitioners, nurses, and any healthcare personnel where applicable.

Jobs Versus Jabs

Private-sector companies with over 100 employees are also unconstitutionally requiring their employees to submit to “safe and effective” gene therapies as vaccinations against COVID-19 or lose their jobs.

These companies are relying on Biden's executive order to shield them from liability for (a) violating constitutional rights and causing real harm to employees who lose their livelihoods for noncompliance or perhaps worse, and (b) for physical harm caused by adverse events upon compliance by submitting to the gene therapies as vaccinations against COVID-19.

No amount of declared liability from any branch of government has the authority to shield companies (or themselves) from the glaring lack of “knowing” informed consent that plagues these experimental COVID injections without full disclosure of any and all risks. It's the law and criminal negligence if ignored on any level.

Companies are further aggravating risk by colluding to withhold state and federal unemployment insurance as additional punishment for employees' noncompliance. A scintilla of discovery will bring potential ruin to many of these ill-advised businesses, many of whom are blinded by the promise of millions in COVID-relief grants to bail out their growing unfunded obligations if they participate in policies that include mandating employee vaccinations.

Our government, in league with health officials, corporations, and now OSHA under it's Emergency Temporary Standard (ETO), whose authority for this task is wide open to challenge and therefore wrong to burden this agency, is mandating that the entire country get injected with a fundamentally experimental technology being sold as a vaccination against a disease that 99.97 percent of the human population survives. The remaining 10 percent are elderly and/or have critical comorbidities. Statistically zero are children.

To add to the COVID incongruity is an almost laissez-faire piling on of vaccines, going from one dose to two doses and now three doses with rumors of a fourth. Health authorities openly admit that those who received two doses six months ago are losing their inoculated immunity, thus protections from COVID illness and hospitalization, including death. A protection that the CDC's data claims only 10 percent of the population requires due to age and/or comorbidities, while the remaining 90 percent infected consists of 80 percent asymptomatic and 10 percent with mild to moderate symptoms, regardless of vaccination status.

Also revealing is that those breakthrough infections (cases after full vaccination, considered to be two weeks following the second dose) now surpass the same outcomes for unvaxxed people as reported around the world. So who are the super-spreaders now?

Full-spectrum immunity enjoyed by COVID-recovered people who are unvaxxed is proven to contain the desirable antibodies for Convalescent Plasma and Monoclonal Antibodies (Regeneron). The public should thank the stars for this group, because they are emerging as saviors thanks to the robust immunity and the antibodies they can share with those of us who are vaxxed and thereby prohibited from contributing because the jab compromises important natural antibodies. So let's stop with the blame game and demand real answers before another incurious decision is made by any of us to accept or reject any medical and/or mitigation protocols.

I urge readers to listen to the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee's (VRBPAC) September 17, 2021, review session for Pfizer's booster application, including the public comments segment, where credentialed professionals were allowed to contribute. It is highly informative and may help alleviate some of the psychosis limiting the public's understanding of the conflicts and controversies that are at the heart of many vaccine-hesitant Americans. (

Which brings us to yet another stunning contradiction if we are to believe we are embroiled in a global lethal pandemic: According to WHO, only 10 percent of 56 countries are vaccinated with at least one dose, while wealthier, developed countries have a much larger percentage of their populations vaccinated, whether one or two doses. If the global health officials were truly concerned with mitigating a lethal pandemic-level disease and saving lives across the planet, the priority would clearly be accelerated for worldwide distribution of the acclaimed safe and effective vaccines. Yet the opposite is true. (

Hey, Teachers – Leave Us Kids Alone!

This includes district school administrators and board members and union leaders. None of the increasingly overwhelming concerns relative to prolonged mask-wearing, isolation, and vaccine-adverse events are deterring the COVID-devoted from coming for our children. A horrifying number of adults have reduced themselves to child-abuse advocates at worst, cowards at best, for expecting children to shield adults from their own risk of getting COVID, a disease that 99.97 survive. If truth be told, most of these actors are more interested in the obscene pile of COVID-relief grant money, for which eligibility hinges on implementing mandatory mitigations and vaccination.

At the risk of redundancy, adults are responsible for their own mitigations, whether masking and isolating, working from home, whatever works, thereby disabusing children of such mitigations because they are at statistical zero risk of getting or giving COVID. Children 0-19 are the least at-risk cohort for transmitting COVID-19, followed by teachers, whose average ages fall within the second-least at-risk cohort of 20-39. Which means, barring any serious comorbidities, they can confidently expect to not contract COVID from students, but on the outside chance they catch it at school, will survive it as one of the 99.97 percent.

Finally, in the cohort of children >12, there is an alarming occurrence of adverse reactions, including a heart condition known as mycarditis. Research is showing that childen face greater risk from the vaccines than from COVID itself. There is no justification on Earth for children <12 to be included in vaccine programs that provide no benefit whatsoever to their cohort. Doing so qualifies as child abuse due to the risk it imposes for no offsetting benefit, and is fast becoming the next great mystery of the world as to why any rational medical professional, let alone sentient adult, would permit such a dangerous, reckless policy to prevail. Stop standing idle.

Support the River Cities' Reader

Get 12 Reader issues mailed monthly for $48/year.

Old School Subscription for Your Support

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Old School Subscribe now.

Help Keep the Reader Alive and Free Since '93!


"We're the River Cities' Reader, and we've kept the Quad Cities' only independently owned newspaper alive and free since 1993.

So please help the Reader keep going with your one-time, monthly, or annual support. With your financial support the Reader can continue providing uncensored, non-scripted, and independent journalism alongside the Quad Cities' area's most comprehensive cultural coverage." - Todd McGreevy, Publisher