Young person getting a COVID-19 Vaccine

2026 New COVID-19 Vaccine Study Mischief

To those of you who know me, it is no surprise that I never tire of being right. To be fair, there is that occasion when I’m not correct, but it happens so rarely. Take the COVID-19 fiasco, for instance. I wrote on that subject exhaustively for several years, and I was right on every measure except one: I predicted that the public would reject the foolishness after the first two weeks. Boy, was I wrong on that one. On every other count, however, I was spot on. Lockdowns were ineffective, masks were worthless and even made infection more likely, social distancing was a farce, and the “COVID-19 vaccine” wasn’t effective at all. Still, to this day, the government keeps pushing these lies on us. Including the refusal to admit that the virus was initially contracted by the virologists who created it, then mutated in its host, as it was carried into the public. I talked about it at the time and provided evidence based on intelligence reports that were available until they were pushed into the dusty back shelves to hide what Fauci and the NIH were about.

Eventually, the truth came out about all of it, not that the media made as much of the truth as it did of the lies.

When the perpetrator says, "Trust me!"

One of the worst aspects of this debacle was the influence the pharma industry secured by paying researchers, funding their “research,” and promoting the publication of papers that were used as evidence that effective treatments were bogus. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the lives and careers of legitimate doctors, scientists, military personnel, police officers, and teachers were destroyed by the sycophant media. All of this resulted in the deaths of vast numbers of people, testified to by no less than Dr. Ben Carson, one of the preeminent medical professionals in the world.

The current count of COVID-19 papers that have been retracted, from both sides of the debate, stands at 676.

I won’t take you through the labyrinth of those past conversations; we have current mischief to expose. On June 25, 2026, The Epoch Times published an article by Zachary Stieber, a Senior Reporter, titled “COVID-19 Vaccine Study, Blocked From CDC Journal, Now Published.”

https://cmsapi.theepochtimes.com/health/covid-19-vaccine-study-blocked-from-cdc-journal-now-published-6053180

This study, funded and influenced in part by vaccine manufacturers, claims that the vaccines were 55% effective against hospitalization. Gee Whiz, can you imagine that, with all the hyperbole surrounding these genetic vaccines, they are willing to boast a whopping 55% success rate. I can remember one talk show celebrity stating that people who didn’t get the vaccine were guilty of dangerous behavior. She specifically stated that if you got the jab, you couldn’t get COVID or transmit it. None of which is true. There is zero evidence that any vaccine can exist that would allow a population to reach herd immunity faster than it does, nor that it prevents mutations from developing naturally. The variables are far too dynamic, and the numbers move with the variants the population faces during any given period. We have been administering flu vaccines for 80 years with no indication that the practice changes the percentage of the population that contracts the disease. In fact, one of the worst years was 2009, when 61 million people contracted H1N1.

Read the full article.

But I digress, back to the matter of the publication in question. The problem, as Mr. Stieber explains, is that the study was originally blocked by the Director of the CDC because it isn’t true, at least it is highly dubious. It seems that both the method and the means used to determine 55% efficacy were faulty and biased. Not to be deterred by mere facts and actual science, the industrial influences finally got their propaganda published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I think a brief explanation might help shed some light on medical publications. If you were to look at one, the percentage of pages devoted to advertisements averages about 36%, and 95% of those are for drugs that manufacturers wish to promote to doctors. Those subscriptions are mostly paid for by the hospital or clinic where they work. This is hardly unbiased.

The article goes on to explain that this study was funded by the CDC and a major hospital system, which shows bias, since both receive substantial funding from the drug industry. The CDC receives millions of dollars every year from the pharmaceutical industry through donations to the CDC Foundation, and hospitals generate about 10% of their revenue from insurance and government-paid medication administration, with a 91% profit margin. Is there any wonder why so many ads are on the radio attempting to influence people to get COVID vaccines?

Making this publication even more suspect, several of its authors disclosed that they were paid by the vaccine manufacturers they reviewed.

To quote Martin Kulldorff, a DSHS adviser, “… those who come to the hospital for a different infectious disease, they are more frail and therefore they have a different probability of having been vaccinated. Has nothing to do with if the vaccine protects you against COVID or not. It just creates the bias, and the bias can go in either direction.”

In summary, a paper touting the benefits of COVID-19 Vaccine use was produced, but it was blocked by the CDC Director for bias, so the vaccine makers went to sources they financially influence to get it published. Now they are going to use that to promote vaccination, which is mostly paid for by the government, which in turn grants manufacturers immunity from liability.

Nice. A $30 billion carnival con game of “follow the peanut.”

But they want us to “trust the science.”