COVID-19 Narrative Analysis: A Clinical Review of Vaccine Transparency and Informed Consent

COVID-19 Narrative Exposed: The Truth Behind The Vaccines

Written and Reviewed by: Dr. Rita Louise, PhD, ND
Field of Inquiry: Medical Ethics, Public Health Policy & Informed Consent
Notice: This article is a critical analysis of historical public health narratives and the ethical requirements of medical transparency.

As a Naturopathic Physician, my primary concern is the preservation of the doctor-patient relationship and the sanctity of Informed Consent. True medical ethics requires that a patient is made aware of all potential risks, benefits, and alternatives—without coercion. When the public health narrative shifts from education to mandate, we must examine the impact on individual health autonomy.

The Impact Of Covid-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on people around the world. It put fear in our hearts. Our minds were filled with anxiety. We wondered “Am I going to die?” Life came to a halt. Forced changes impacted our daily lives. Schools and businesses were shut down. Things we took for granted, going shopping, meeting friends for lunch or even going for a walk in the park became taboo. These basic life pleasures became off-limit, if not by law, but because of our own thoughts of imminent annihilation.

Even today, many still the question the science, wondering if what was said was true or was there something deeper, more devious occurring. But numbers don’t lie, dates don’t lie, and actions don’t lie. They can, however be used to spin the truth. So perhaps, now that things have calmed down, it is time to take a real assessment of what transpired.

The following is not based upon the words of naysayers but comes directly from mainstream health authorities. To understand how our current medical institutions gained such centralized authority over public health narratives, one must look back at the The Flexner Report and the Rise of Allopathic Monopoly, which fundamentally reshaped medical education and practice over a century ago.

Once you start asking questions, once you start looking at the timeline of how the race for a cure unfolded, the narrative begins to fall apart. While I am not saying there was a conspiracy going on, when you look at how it all played out, it does appear as if forces may have been operating behind the scenes dictating the trajectory of pandemic recovery.

Is there a deeper truth? By using a little common sense and perhaps reading between the lines the reality of what actually happened may reveal themselves to you.

From Mystery Pneumonia to Global Alert: The Dawn of COVID-19

The first cases of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) were detected in late November/early December 2019 in China. These individuals were thought to have an upper respiratory infection or were suffering from pneumonia. On December 31, Chinese authorities alerted the World Health Organization (WHO) about a “pneumonia of unknown etiology” affecting their citizens, reporting a cluster of cases of this mysterious condition.

Their concern centered on the fact that affected individuals did not respond to standard pneumonia treatments. Cases were increasing rapidly, leading authorities to speculate they were dealing with a novel illness. One of their primary concerns was how quickly it was spreading and its ability to cause severe respiratory illness, particularly in older adults. This prompted an investigation into what was happening.

On January 7, 2020, Chinese scientists mapped out the genomic sequence of the virus. The sequence confirmed they were not dealing with pneumonia but a new strain of coronavirus, distinct from SARS-CoV-1 (2003). Their results were shared globally on January 10, 2020.

By then, the death toll in China had risen to 41 people, with a median age of roughly 49 years. About 32% of those affected had comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease, indicating that older individuals and those with underlying health conditions were at higher risk for developing severe or fatal cases.

Scientists worldwide analyzed the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome provided by the Chinese and identified unique regions within the sequence that could be used as markers for developing a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. They quickly designed specific primers, produced the necessary reagents, established testing protocols, confirmed the primers’ specificity to SARS-CoV-2, tested the assay on suspected cases, and rolled out the newly developed PCR test.

Testing for COVID-19 via PCR began on January 16, 2020.It took only six days from the release of the genetic sequence by the Chinese for multiple countries to deploy COVID-specific PCR tests—talk about warp speed!

The incredible velocity at which the PCR tests were developed was attributed to researchers’ prior experience with SARS (SARS-CoV-1). This foreknowledge accelerated the development and release of COVID-specific tests.

Chinese authorities soon reported a sharp increase in cases, with over 2,000 confirmed in Wuhan alone. On January 23, China imposed a national lock-down. The virus was soon detected in multiple countries across different continents, with the first case appearing in the United States on January 21. The WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency on January 30, based on approximately 7,800 cases globally and 170 associated deaths.

PCR Testing: Cycle Thresholds and Accuracy

PCR tests utilize material collected via nasal swab, throat swab, or saliva. The sample is run through several cycles (Cycle Threshold), with each cycle amplifying the targeted genetic material, making the virus easier to detect. If an active infection is discovered, no further cycles are needed. A Cycle Threshold (Ct) value of ≤30–33 is generally considered reliable for identifying an active, contagious infection.

The number of cycles (Ct values) used in PCR testing varied, but many labs used a high standard (35–40) to maximize sensitivity. Many labs argued that lowering Ct values to 30 would increase false negatives and miss early or asymptomatic cases.

Higher Ct values often detect non-viable virus fragments or past infections, which can lead to false positives. It is estimated that 15% of all positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results came from high Ct values, with 50–80% of those cases likely being false positives. The WHO issued a warning about using high Ct values; however, their guidance was not mandatory, and many labs continued using high Ct cycles.

Early COVID Treatments and Global Trials: The Remdesivir Story

At the start of the outbreak of this pneumonia-like virus, patients received treatments such as oxygen therapy, antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, IV fluids, and other supportive measures. Six patients went on to mechanical ventilation, and some received a drug called lopinavir/ritonavir, which is used for HIV treatment. It had shown some success against SARS-CoV-1 but was never subjected to large-scale randomized controlled trials.

Testing quickly began to identify effective therapeutics to battle the impending crisis. The WHO organized an international drug trial, the Solidarity Trial, to test promising treatments. Over 100 countries participated, including France, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom, China, Thailand, South Africa, Egypt, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and the United States. The trial tested four drugs:

• Remdesivir
• Lopinavir/Ritonavir
• Hydroxychloroquine
• Interferon beta-1a

The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials

In the U.S., the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, funded the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trials (ACTT). This series of clinical trials evaluated the safety and efficacy of potential COVID-19 treatments. The trials were conducted in hospital settings with a sample group of approximately 1,000 people and were run as follows:

• ACTT-1 (Remdesivir vs. placebo): Started February 21, 2020.
• ACTT-2 (Remdesivir + baricitinib vs. remdesivir alone): Started May 8, 2020.
• ACTT-3 (Remdesivir + interferon beta-1a vs. remdesivir alone): Started August 5, 2020.
• ACTT-4 (Remdesivir + baricitinib vs. remdesivir + dexamethasone): Started November 25, 2020.

The ACTT-1 study revealed that remdesivir alone reduced hospital recovery time in COVID-19 patients from 15 to 10 days, yet mortality rates remained high. Sixty-two patients in the 541-person remdesivir group died, compared to 80 in the 521-person placebo group.

ACTT-2 evaluated remdesivir plus baricitinib against remdesivir alone. Twenty-six people died in the combination group, compared to 40 in the remdesivir-alone group. There was no “placebo-only” group in the ACTT-2 trials. The combination of remdesivir plus baricitinib showed a lower mortality rate than remdesivir alone, but the mortality difference was not deemed “statistically significant.”

Remdesivir was combined with interferon beta-1a in ACTT-3. No significant improvement in recovery time was observed, and mortality rates remained about the same. Similar results were found in ACTT-4 when remdesivir was combined with baricitinib or dexamethasone.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the NIAID, proclaimed “clear-cut” evidence of remdesivir’s efficacy in reducing recovery time during a White House briefing on April 29, 2020. At the time, remdesivir was still an investigational drug. It had been explored as a broad-spectrum antiviral and underwent clinical trials in 2014 for Ebola treatment.

Remdesivir, in the Ebola trials, was shown to be less effective than other treatments like monoclonal antibodies, with a mortality rate of about 50% compared to 30–35% for other trial drugs. Nevertheless, the FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for it on May 1, 2020, just two months after the ACTT-1 trials commenced.

The clinical trials for remdesivir were well-designed and rapid. The tests for its therapeutic competitors—lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and interferon beta-1a—were smaller and less robust, lacking the scientific rigor seen in the larger remdesivir trials and resulting in inconclusive or negative results. Health authorities did not evaluate other drugs to combat COVID-19.

The outcome of the trials led to remdesivir becoming the only drug approved for the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. At a cost of $3,120 per treatment round, Gilead earned $2.8 billion in 2020 and a whopping $5.6 billion in 2021.

The Remdesivir Efficacy Debate

The use of remdesivir faced criticism from the start. Some studies showed benefits in shortening recovery time and hospitalization, while others found no advantages. The WHO’s Solidarity Trial, involving 11,266 patients across 30 countries, found no meaningful benefit of remdesivir in reducing mortality, hospitalization duration, or ventilation needs. This prompted the WHO to recommend against its use on November 20, 2020, diminishing remdesivir’s status as the “gold standard” treatment for COVID-19.

Missed Opportunities for Preventive Immune Support

Around the same time the ACTT-2 trials began, investigations into therapeutics such as vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, elderberry, or echinacea were conducted. These studies were not designed to find a cure but to assess their benefits in reducing severity, aiding recovery, or preventing the worsening of symptoms. Despite public excitement, the scientific community approached these studies with caution.

Using vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, elderberry, or echinacea to support and boost the immune system has a rich history. They are often recommended during traditional cold and flu seasons. They are generally considered safe when used appropriately, offering preventive or supportive measures rather than treatment. Recommendations for their use come from sources like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Their cold and flu guidelines also emphasize dietary changes to boost the body’s natural infection-fighting mechanisms.

Agencies like the CDC, NIH, and WHO avoided endorsing these measures because “randomized controlled trials” were not performed. They believed recommending supplements, diet, or exercise without evidence could risk public perception, as people might use them in place of “proven measures” like masking, social distancing, or vaccination.

The few trials that were conducted were underpowered and inconclusive. They evaluated individuals with active COVID-19 infections, finding that supplements like vitamin C, zinc, or elderberry did not reduce the severity or duration of symptoms. It was also suggested that herbs like echinacea, which stimulate immunity, could theoretically worsen symptoms.

No consideration was given to the potential use of these therapies as preventive measures, taken before infection. If used regularly, they might have prevented or reduced the severity of infections, helped avoid hospitalization, or even prevented death, especially for people with comorbidities or who were immunocompromised.

Anyone who questioned medical authorities was suppressed. Suggesting alternative treatments or therapies might work in fighting the scourge facing humanity was heavily discouraged. Google, through its 2018 “Medic” algorithm update, had already devalued websites offering alternative products and services by imposing stricter Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness (EAT) policies. This caused millions of health-related websites outside the traditional medical model to fall dramatically in search results.

On April 15, 2020, YouTube announced and implemented a specific COVID-19 “medical misinformation policy”, targeting content that contradicted health authorities like the WHO or CDC. Individuals who voiced concerns about the pandemic were silenced; their videos were removed, or their channels were deleted. We were told to “trust the science,” and those who didn’t were instructed to stay quiet and comply.

mRNA and DNA Vaccines Revolutionize COVID-19 Response

In the West, mRNA and DNA-based technologies had been explored for various diseases since the 1990s. They work by instructing the cells to produce specific proteins that activate the immune system or stimulate treatment. Early studies focused on developing vaccines for health concerns such as the Zika virus, influenza, and HIV, as well as conditions like prostate and lung cancer.

How Viruses Replicate Inside Host Cells

To spread, viruses need to enter host cells to replicate. Surface proteins on the virus allow it to attach to and enter the cell. Once inside, the virus uses the cell’s ribosomes to produce additional viral proteins, leading to viral replication and the spread of infection, causing symptoms such as fever, cough, or fatigue.

Coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV-1, SARS-CoV-2, and MERS-CoV, have surface proteins called “spike proteins,” named for their spike-like projections. The immune system recognizes these proteins, including the spike protein, as foreign and activates to fight them. Upon detection, the body creates antibodies and immune cells to combat the invader. After the infection is cleared, these cells “remember” the pathogen. If the same invader returns, memory cells trigger a faster, more efficient immune response, often preventing illness. This is the foundation of natural immunity.

The mRNA/DNA Vaccine Mechanism

The innovative technology of mRNA vaccines, used in the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, involves lab-created mRNA encoded with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Simply put, mRNA technology programs messenger RNA, like writing a computer script for the cells to follow. It is designed to produce specific immune-triggering proteins in the body, namely the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The lab-created mRNA is encased in lipid nanoparticles. Once injected, these nanoparticles help the mRNA enter the cells, where ribosomes read the code and produce only the spike protein. The spike protein is then displayed on the cell surface, triggering an immune response.

DNA-based vaccines, developed by AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J), use programmed DNA. A custom DNA sequence is injected, entering cells and releasing the DNA into the cell’s nucleus. The cell transcribes the DNA into messenger RNA, and the ribosomes create spike proteins, activating an immune response.

Challenges in Early mRNA Vaccine Development

Early mRNA/DNA vaccine development faced significant challenges, including product stability issues and strong immune reactions. These were major barriers to releasing this technology for public use. While some issues were resolved over the decades, none of the early vaccines in the pipeline advanced beyond Phase I (animal) or Phase II (limited human) trials. The first large-scale testing of an mRNA or DNA-based vaccine was the Phase III (large-scale) trials for the COVID-19 vaccine.

With the outbreak of COVID-19, it was believed that mRNA or DNA-based technologies could be designed and deployed rapidly. Research began immediately after the SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence was shared on January 10, 2020:

• Inovio Pharmaceuticals initiated COVID-19 DNA vaccine research on January 10.
• The University of Oxford, later partnering with AstraZeneca, began its COVID-19 vaccine research on January 11.
• BioNTech (Pfizer) launched its mRNA vaccine program, Project Lightspeed, on January 12.
• Moderna, in collaboration with the U.S. NIH, started its investigation on January 13.

FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization for COVID Vaccines

The vaccines were developed with unprecedented speed. Clinical trials were expedited, with Phase I trials starting in March, just three months later, followed by Phase II trials in April. Phase III trials began on July 27, 2020.

The Phase III trial was designed to last six months and included follow-ups with periodic monitoring post-injection. The trials were a multi-country effort, with many participants coming from low and middle-income countries like South America and Africa Trial members received two doses 21 days apart. Vaccine efficacy was assessed seven days after the second dose, with follow-ups at the two-month mark. Based on interim results, a report documenting the vaccine’s efficacy was compiled.

Using the Pfizer-BioNTech data, as reported in the New England Journal of Medicine article entitled “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine” (December 10, 2020), their COVID-19 vaccine was 95% effective against symptomatic COVID-19 and 100% effective against severe disease, meaning it was claimed to completely prevent severe cases of COVID-19.

The Pfizer-BioNTech trial included 36,523 participants: 18,198 received the vaccine, and 18,325 received a placebo. By the end of the two-month window, 170 confirmed COVID-19 cases were reported, 8 from the vaccine group and 162 from the placebo group, yielding a 95% efficacy rating. One severe case was reported in the placebo group, and zero in the vaccinated group. This allowed them to claim a 100% efficacy for severe cases.

At the same time, the FDA released its requirements for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). They mandated data showing at least 50% protection against COVID-19 and safety data for at least two months of testing. The FDA did not require the clinical trial to be completed. The next day, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine received an EUA from the FDA. The first dose was administered on December 14, a full two months before the Phase III trials concluded.

The second Pfizer-BioNTech report, “Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine through 6 Months” (July 28, 2021), published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found the vaccine was 91.3% effective against symptomatic COVID-19 (850 positive cases in the placebo group, 77 in the vaccinated group). The 100% efficacy for preventing severe cases dropped to 96% (9 placebo, 1 vaccine). This report was largely ignored.

Vaccine Efficacy Messaging Campaigns

Organizations like the WHO and CDC emphasized that vaccines were 90–95% effective against symptomatic COVID-19, based on clinical trials. News outlets (e.g., CNN, BBC) highlighted this data to build trust and urgency, assuring the public that the vaccine would prevent severe illness and death. They framed it as a major scientific breakthrough, stressing that the vaccines underwent rigorous testing with rare adverse effects. Messaging like “safe and effective” was used on social media and in other ads to counter vaccine hesitancy.

News and health authorities promoted the vaccines as the key to ending lock-downs and restoring normalcy. Campaigns like the CDC’s “It’s Up to You” emphasized collective action, suggesting vaccination would stop the virus’s spread. Media stories featured doctors and seniors getting vaccinated to model trust, framing vaccination as a civic duty that protected not only yourself but others.

“The vaccine is highly effective—94 to 95 percent effective, and it is very likely that it will prevent people from getting infected and transmitting the virus.” — Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of NIAID (Interview on Meet the Press, NBC News, December 13, 2020)

“These vaccines are a game-changer. They’re not just preventing severe disease but stopping the virus in its tracks, protecting you and those around you.” — “Here’s What You Need to Know About the COVID Vaccine,” CNN (December 14, 2020)

“Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick, and that includes not only clinical data but also real-world evidence.” — Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC Director (March 29, 2021, Interview on The Rachel Maddow Show)

Public sentiment was overwhelming. People rushed to receive their lifesaving treatment, believing they could let go of the fear of infection and potential death. The world could finally return to normal.

Securing Vaccine Supplies: High-Income Nations Dominating Vaccine Access

High-income nations secured the majority of the vaccine supply through early purchase agreements. For instance, the United Kingdom’s (UK) Vaccine Taskforce was established in April 2020 to obtain rapid access to vaccines for the British population. The European Union (EU) created advanced purchase agreements with vaccine manufacturers to acquire doses in exchange for upfront funding, legally obligating manufacturers like Pfizer and Moderna to fulfill these contracts before selling to other countries. These pre-purchased doses were procured before Phase II (limited human) trials were complete.

By mid-2020, the US, UK, and EU had reserved millions of doses, leaving limited supplies for low and middle-income countries, who faced supply chain delays and shortages due to export controls and hoarding by richer nations.

Inactivated Virus Vaccines : Time-Tested Vaccine Technology

While mRNA and DNA-based vaccines were in development, several countries, including China, Russia, and India, developed vaccines based on an inactivated virus platform. Inactivated virus technology is one of the oldest and most established forms of vaccine development, representing a time-tested approach used to combat infectious diseases for over a century. Vaccines such as those for polio, rabies, and hepatitis rely on this technology.

This platform involves growing the virus in a lab and then killing it. These dead virus particles cannot replicate or cause infection but can still trigger a protective immune response. China’s Sinopharm and Sinovac labs, with extensive experience developing inactivated virus vaccines for other diseases, had mature technological platforms, established production pathways, and existing facilities that could be quickly adapted for COVID-19 vaccine production. Phase III trials reported Sinopharm’s vaccine to be 79% effective against symptomatic disease.

Distribution of Chinese vaccines began early in the race for a cure. China started administering its inactivated virus vaccines under an emergency use program in July 2020, targeting essential workers such as healthcare professionals, customs officers, and military personnel. By December 2020, over 1 million people had received Sinopharm’s vaccine. The vaccine was approved for general use on December 31, 2020, launching a mass vaccination campaign targeting the public.

The West Shuns Inactivated Virus Vaccine Technology

While inactivated virus technology has been widely used for decades, major Western pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca did not pursue this platform as their primary COVID-19 vaccine candidate. They cited safety concerns, particularly the need for large-scale, high-level biosafety facilities to grow live viruses, and noted that the process was complex, time-consuming, and expensive.

The rapid availability and shorted testing period of mRNA/DNA vaccines, despite the absence of a previously released products based on similar technology, was justified because of their ‘decades-long research’. They had been studied extensively, had a history of successful development prior to their use, and lengthy cumulative optimization phase which made them strong candidates for a quick release. They came to this conclusion even though none of their previous products had any large scale testing or long-term follow-ups in humans.

The US, UK, and EU showed little enthusiasm for inactivated virus vaccines. For example, Valneva, an EU-based (Austrian) pharmaceutical company, developed a vaccine using inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus. While the exact start date of their investigation is unknown, it entered Phase III trials in April 2021 and was approved for use in the UK and EU nearly a year later, long after mRNA and DNA vaccines were rolled out. No other major inactivated virus vaccine candidates advanced beyond Phase I or II testing in the West.

Inactivated virus vaccines, such as those by Sinopharm and Sinovac, were not distributed or available in the US or EU because they were never approved by the FDA or the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Data submitted by these Chinese companies was deemed insufficient by some regulators, preventing approval in the West.

To be clear, mRNA and DNA viral vector vaccines received significant funding: Pfizer received $1.95 billion, Moderna $2.48 billion, and J&J $1.5 billion for vaccine development. Valneva’s VLA2001 received about $400 million throughout the project. While exact funding for China’s Sinopharm and Sinovac is undisclosed, estimates suggest Sinopharm’s development cost about $60 million and Sinovac’s about $25 million – far less than the billions spent in the West.

The direction vaccine development favored was also influenced by another unspoken factor. The US, UK and EU lacked large-scale inactivated vaccine production capabilities sizeable enough to produce the vaccines at the levels needed. The primary locations with large enough facilities capable of manufacturing inactivated virus vaccines are China, India, Brazil and Russia.

It didn’t matter. By the time Phase 2 trials began (April 2020), huge contracts for the new viral technology vaccine were already signed, locking them into a massive purchase of this untested, unproven platform.

Early Breakthrough Cases Shatter Vaccine Expectations

You would think that the story of COVID-19 and COVID-19 therapy would have reached the end of the road with the deployment of the vaccine. Studies and trials for additional therapeutics would be unnecessary once enough people were vaccinated and we reached herd immunity. But that was not the case.

By December 2020, just two weeks after the vaccine rollout began, the first documented breakthrough case emerged. A breakthrough case occurs when a fully vaccinated individual tests positive for SARS-CoV-2. A January 2021 a Lancet study identified approximately 10 breakthrough cases among vaccinated individuals within two weeks of their first dose. By March 2021, the CDC launched a Vaccine Breakthrough Surveillance System to document cases. By April 2021, approximately 10,262 verified breakthrough infections had been reported.

The CDC, in a press briefing on CNN, informed the public that about 5,800 breakthrough cases had been reported. This announcement was the first public disclosure of this new pattern of infection. They openly admitted that “Vaccinated people can still get infected.” They quickly pivoted their messaging from their early 2021 claims of near-complete infection prevention position to “vaccines prevent severe disease.” 

Health officials did not anticipate the virus mutating into variants like Delta and Omicron, nor did they expect the vaccine’s effectiveness to wane over time. Clinical data showed antibody levels declined 6–12 months post-vaccination, with the Pfizer vaccine’s effectiveness dropping from 95% to 50–60%. This prompted the development and distribution of boosters.

Despite breakthrough cases and waning effectiveness, health officials’ messaging shifted slightly but remained largely consistent. They continued to promote the vaccines as “safe and effective,” strategically using this sentiment to encourage more people to get vaccinated.

“The vaccines are not going to prevent 100% of infections… but they do an extraordinary job of preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death. That’s why we need to keep pushing vaccination.” — Dr. Anthony Fauci in a July 2021 interview on CNN

Ivermectin’s Rise as a Controversial COVID Treatment

Limited evaluation of other potential therapeutics continued until November 2020, when clinical trials for monoclonal antibodies were conducted in outpatient and hospitalized settings. These trials showed a 70–85% reduction in hospitalization or death when administered within 7–10 days of symptoms. However, most monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were ineffective against Delta, Omicron, and their subvariants due to spike protein mutations, leading to EUA revocations by the FDA.

As breakthrough cases emerged, researchers refocused on therapeutics to treat infections, this time in vaccinated individuals. Tested therapeutics included molnupiravir, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), intravenous remdesivir, bamlanivimab/etesevimab, casirivimab/imdevimab (REGEN-COV), sotrovimab, and therapeutic-dose heparin.

Outside government health authorities, doctors independently developed COVID-19 protocols for their patients. In 2020, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family medicine physician, developed an outpatient treatment protocol using hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He reported treating over 700 patients with his protocols (including ivermectin variants), claiming an 84% reduction in hospitalizations. His protocol gained prominence in alternative circles in 2020, but due to the lack of randomized controlled trials, mainstream medicine dismissed his findings.

Similarly, Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist and vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, developed the McCullough Protocol, a multidrug approach to combat COVID-19. It included hydroxychloroquine, zinc, azithromycin, or ivermectin, with budesonide, dexamethasone, or apixaban added to address inflammation or clotting. He reported treating 800 high-risk patients with a 1.5% hospitalization rate and 0.25% mortality (two deaths), far below national averages.

The FLCCC Alliance developed a prevention protocol using ivermectin, vitamin D, zinc, quercetin, and aspirin, yielding near-zero severe outcomes. Likewise, the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) issued treatment guidelines incorporating hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc. AAPS members treated over 1,000 patients, claiming a hospitalization rate of less than 1%.Despite their reported success, these protocols were not investigated by health authorities.

Public awareness grew through social media and conservative news outlets, touting ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as unproven cures. By mid-2021, approximately 22,000 ivermectin prescriptions were written weekly.

There were also a large number of people who took matters into their own hands and sought out ivermectin outside of the health establishment. How could forget the controversy about taking a ‘horse paste’ to cure an illness? Ivermectin is the primary ingredient in products like Durvet Ivermectin Dewormer Paste. This veterinary product is inexpensive and can be purchased at your local Tractor Supply.

People started self-medicating and unfortunately, some individuals took too much. U.S. poison control centers reported an increase in ivermectin exposure cases especially between July to August 2021, some of which required hospitalizations. Worldwide, 6 confirmed deaths primarily from the misuse of veterinary formulations were reported.

Doctors soon faced barriers to prescribing ivermectin. The FDA, CDC, NIH, and WHO issued warnings against its use, cautioning doctors about potential liability or disciplinary action. Pharmacies, including major chains like CVS and Walgreens, often refused to fill ivermectin prescriptions, citing corporate policies aligned with FDA guidance. This effectively ended prescription-based ivermectin as a COVID-19 therapy.

Breakthrough Cases Spark Distrust: Introducing Vaccine Mandates And Passports

The overstated claim that vaccinated people were protected from contracting or transmitting COVID-19, fueled widespread skepticism and eroded trust as news of breakthrough cases emerged. Media outlets amplified this concern with headlines like NBC’s “Vaccinated People Spreading COVID,” which undermined initial assurances. By December 2021, an estimated 20–40 million vaccinated individuals tested positive for COVID-19 globally. The public felt misled.

In response to growing concerns, health authorities imposed mandates. Vaccine mandates rolled out in phases starting in mid-2021. In July 2021, President Biden announced a federal mandate via executive order for all healthcare workers and federal employees. Private companies followed, requiring vaccination as a condition of employment. The military was the last group to be included.

Many private businesses, particularly in the hospitality, entertainment, and travel sectors, began requiring proof of vaccination. City and state policies, such as New York’s Key to NYC Pass, Los Angeles County’s Safer LA Order, and San Francisco’s Safer Activities, were enacted through state and local emergency powers.

Businesses faced a clear choice: operate at 50% capacity or require proof of vaccination. For many in business sectors, requiring a vaccine passport became a matter of survival. This also limited an unvaccinated person’s to ability to participate in social activities, that is unless they had the golden ticket – proof of vaccination.

Vaccine Averts 14.4 Million Deaths

Health authorities continued to urge individuals to get boosters to counteract waning immunity, but public skepticism grew. The public was skeptical. The Lancit, a highly respected weekly peer-reviewed medical journal, in September of 2022, release an article identifying the global impact of the Covid-19 vaccine. Their article Global Impact Of The First Year Of COVID-19 Vaccination: a Mathematical Modelling Study proclaimed the vaccine “prevented 14·4 million deaths from COVID-19 between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 8, 2021.” The timing of the article’s release could not have been better. Vaccine hesitancy was at an all time high.

The ‘hard, scientific data’ presented extolled the benefits of taking the vaccine. The number of lives saved, miraculous as it sounds, was not based in fact or empirical evidence and was not presented to the public truthfully. So what was the study and how did they come up with that number?

To estimate the 14.4 million deaths averted, researchers used a mathematical model to simulate virus spread. The model assumed vaccines prevented 90–95% of deaths for some groups and 70–85% for others, while reducing transmission by 50–70%, protecting unvaccinated individuals. It also incorporated factors like mask-wearing, lockdowns, and behavioral components in place at the time.

The results of this report were used to justify – well just about everything.

In 2022–2023, several peer-reviewed articles challenged the Lancet study. Articles such as “The Discrepancy Between the Number of Saved Lives with COVID-19 Vaccination and Statistics of Our World Data” and “The Lancet Has Become a Laughing Stock” questioned the methodology and results. They argued the 14.4 million lives saved relied on hypothetical scenarios and speculative assumptions, not evidence.

These critiques also suggested that the results were used to justify coercive policies, potentially exaggerating benefits while downplaying risks. They further implied the Lancet might be biased, favoring vaccine promotion over objective science, citing funding from organizations like the WHO and the Gates Foundation.

These claims were dismissed by other peer-reviewed journals for lacking empirical evidence. The Lancet’s critics were forced to publish in secondary or tertiary journals, as major health journals like the Lancet or JAMA rejected their work. Their findings gained traction through alternative media but the authors were often labeled “conspiracy theories,” diminishing the impact of their findings.

The Lancet study was widely publicized to promote vaccination. Public health officials, government agencies, and media outlets cited its findings to highlight the vaccines’ success, emphasizing that “millions of lives were saved.” Major outlets like The Guardian, CNN, and BBC reported the study’s conclusions as fact, stating that “COVID-19 vaccines saved 14.4 million lives” or “nearly 20 million lives” globally in the first year.

By mid-2023, approximately 10,000–15,000 papers focused on vaccine effectiveness. Opposing voices faced professional repercussions, including defamation, harassment, career setbacks, or retracted papers, all in the name of science.

The End Of The COVID Era

The national public health emergency, including federal vaccine mandates, largely ended on May 11, 2023. The world began a cautious return to pre-pandemic life. Daily activities resumed, proof-of-vaccination requirements were lifted, borders reopened, people returned to work, schools resumed in-person learning, and travel restrictions were eased. Although the threat of COVID-19 has significantly diminished and life has returned to a semblance of normalcy, the profound impact of the pandemic remains. From economic strain to fear of illness, isolation, and uncertainty, we are only beginning to recover.

In hindsight, it is estimated that each American contracted COVID-19 an average of 1.5–2.5 times, vaccinated or not. Approximately 1.2 million people in the US died from COVID-19, with about 100,000–150,000 deaths attributed to breakthrough cases alone. Worldwide, approximately 7.1 million died, with an estimated 1–2 million from breakthrough cases.

The post-COVID-19 era has propelled mRNA and DNA vaccine technologies into a transformative phase for both human and animal health. mRNA vaccines are leading the charge due to their rapid adaptability and ‘”success against SARS-CoV-2.” Currently, over 100 clinical trials are underway using the mRNA platform.

DNA vaccines, while slower to advance in human applications, are gaining traction in oncology and pandemic preparedness, with robust veterinary approvals for diseases like African swine fever and salmon infections.

Skepticism about mRNA and DNA vaccines persists.

The Unseen Force of Corporate and Governmental Alignment

When tracing the timeline from the immediate development of the high-cycle PCR test to the swift EUA of remdesivir and the pre-purchase of billions of dollars worth of unproven mRNA vaccines, a pattern of unprecedented, synchronized alignment emerges between government agencies, pharmaceutical giants, and the media. This convergence ensured a specific, high-tech, high-profit solution was implemented worldwide and low-cost options were censored.

The official rhetoric of late 2020 promised a “game-changer”: a vaccine 90-95% effective at preventing infection, transmission, and death, marking a return to normal. Yet, as the timeline shows, the reality of breakthrough cases shattered this promise almost immediately upon rollout. Yet they persisted. Health authorities kept ensuring the effectiveness vaccine. This sentiment was amplified by media. But when people weren’t heeding their guidance and getting in line for the jab, mandates were imposed. Just sayin’.

While we cannot claim a formal conspiracy, the evidence strongly suggests that extrinsic factors, financial incentive, geopolitical positioning, and existing infrastructure deficits (like the lack of Western inactivated vaccine capacity), dictated policy more than an open, adaptive scientific process. For many, the “deeper truth” is found in recognizing the powerful forces that shape global public health decisions long before the first case is even reported.

Join me every Thursday at 7:00 p.m. Central on YouTube at Just Energy Radio for Thursday Night Live, where we explore and share transformative strategies. Connect with a vibrant, loving community. Use it to release the old, embrace the new, and create a life filled with clarity, joy, and profound possibility. Your transformation begins now—take that first step today!

About The Author

Dr. Rita Louise is a Naturopathic Physician who specializes in medical intuition. She has over 30 years of clinical experience in holistic wellness and trauma recovery. She is the founder of the Institute of Applied Energetics and a bestselling author of seven books on health, healing, psychology and the human experience. Dr. Louise holds a PhD in Natural Health Counseling and is a recognized expert in the mind-body connection. Her work focuses on patient advocacy and empowering individuals through informed health choices. Connect with Dr. Rita’s research on Substack or explore her clinical services at SoulHealer.com.

© Copyright Rita Louise, Inc. – soulhealer.com. All rights reserved.

Medical Disclaimer:This article is for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Use of this site does not create a doctor-patient relationship.