Horowitz: Why is Pfizer – the leakiest vaccine – enjoying the most approval from government?

August was a remarkable month. In the face of all the bad reactions to the vaccines, we learned that after all that pain, the vaccines aren't even lasting. Concurrently, cases and deaths are skyrocketing more than before anyone had a vaccine. Yet precisely at the time when the shots are wearing off, the FDA not only quasi-approved the vaccine, but picked the leakiest of all to greenlight and also authorized emergency use of a third shot ... of the same failed substance.

Even the most unflinching supporters of the COVID vaccines who deny any risks whatsoever should be asking the following salient question: Why is it the Pfizer vaccine that is getting the first full approval, the first booster approval, and the first emergency use for children, given that Moderna clearly works better?

Any intellectually honest person at this point would have to admit that Moderna has won the battle of vaccine champions vs. Pfizer. According to a Mayo Clinic study, as of July, Americans were twice as likely to experience breakthrough infections after having had the Pfizer shot compared to Moderna. "In Florida, which is currently experiencing its largest COVID-19 surge to date, the risk of infection in July after full vaccination with mRNA-1273 (the Moderna shot) was about 60% lower than after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (Pfizer)," the researchers said.

Overall, the Mayo Clinic researchers pegged Pfizer's efficacy at 42% vs. 76% for Moderna.

Israel, a country where almost the entire adult population got the Pfizer shot, found just 39% efficacy in the Pfizer shot from data that is now two months old. And evidence is mounting that the efficacy wanes with every increasing month. Given these numbers, and the known risks of leaky viruses creating stronger, more durable viral immune escape, isn't anyone interested in researching whether Pfizer's leakiness is the possible culprit for both the U.S. and Israel seemingly experiencing a worse surge than ever before?

The fact that Pfizer is leaking with antibodies waning much quicker is not surprising. A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that Moderna recipients had twice the antibody levels of those who received the Pfizer shots after a similar follow-up period after the second shot.

"Pfizer is the lowest dose of mRNA, at 30 micrograms per shot, and it's therefore obvious that Pfizer has the lowest estimated vaccine efficacy," said Dr. Peter McCullough, a world-renowned cardiologist who has raised serious questions about the mass vaccination strategy.

McCollough said that the differential vaccine efficacy is not merely about academic intrigue but has real-life consequences. "A common question I'm asked by my patients is which vaccine is the best and how can it be safely given," he said. Based on the government's stronger and quicker approval of Pfizer, the public perception is that Pfizer is the best bet, and Pfizer is winning the market share and almost completely owns the teen demographic.

However, how can "the experts" ask Americans now to take a risk on a booster from Pfizer, in itself an indictment of Pfizer's existing efficacy, with the same failed formula without giving proper informed consent about the efficacy of each vaccine? Israeli researchers came out with a new study concluding that "elderly individuals (60+) who received their second dose (of Pfizer) in March 2021 were 1.6 (CI: [1.3, 2]) times more protected against infection and 1.7 (CI: [1.0, 2.7]) times more protected against severe COVID-19 compared to those who received their second dose in January 2021." They found similar results across all age groups; it's just that most of the seniors were vaccinated earlier, so they are experiencing waning immunity quicker.

There are so many unanswered questions based on the existing science. Why should Pfizer be the first to be rewarded with a third shot if its product failed quicker than anyone else's? And how will another dose of the same formula with an ever-evolving virus work even as long as last time? Shouldn't we first study why the vaccine is so leaky and whether the leakiness is the culprit for this bizarre viral enhancement we seem to be experiencing, which is so unnatural? Typically, a virus that is more transmissible becomes less virulent, not more virulent.

Here's another question: With the current vaccines leaking to various degrees, why does the FDA continue to slow-walk Novavax, which is closer to a traditional vaccine? With a rapidly deteriorating situation in America, wouldn't we be desperate for a new solution rather than doubling down on the most failed vaccine?

By now, the wheels in your brain should begin to churn and come to the realization that, to borrow a line from Orwell, not all animals are created equal. Clearly, some companies have more pull than others. Nobody can deny that the tendentious treatment of Pfizer in the face of contrary scientific evidence demonstrates that politics and money supersede science. Pfizer is an exponentially larger company than Moderna, with an entrenched lobbying arm dating back decades. So just maybe – maybe – our entire approach to this virus, from the use of remdesivir and vaccines over early, cheap therapeutics to the failed capacity restrictions and masking are also rooted in political science rather than natural science?