Cracks in the COVID Narrative started appearing last summer.
Even the (formerly reputable) Science magazine is trying to recoup its severely damaged reputation by publishing some questions.
Will Aseem Malhotra’s Appearance Be the BBC’s Most Viewed Programme of 2023?
...Courtesy of Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, Dr. Aseem Malhotra may just have provided 2023’s biggest TV moment. As I write this, the seven minute clip of him being interviewed on a BBC news show on January 14th passed 14.8 million views. Now, wouldn’t you think that merited some form of acknowledgement from the BBC? If you were the BBC’s Head of Programmes wouldn’t you think: “Wow, we’ve had 14.8 million views, there’s a programme in this?”
It seems incredible that the BBC and, by association, the Government, think they can just bury the story. As if, so long as it isn’t mentioned, the other 50-odd million people in the country won’t also think, “Hmm, there’s something not quite right about these vaccines”. Surely radio silence only adds to the unease. Since the creation of the ‘Trusted News Initiative’, I’ve lost all trust in the BBC. Its obsessive focus on Net Zero and intersectionality sounds suspiciously like a USSR era Pravda piece about tractor production in Murmansk.
I suspect the reason the Malhotra clip has cut through so far and fast is because it perfectly resonates with people’s ‘lived experience’; everyone knows someone whom they suspect has been harmed by the vaccines.
My own sister-in-law dropped dead of SADS (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) back in August 2022. A fit, size 10, keen cyclist, found dead in her garden one morning. She had been just about to set off on a bike ride. The autopsy could find no specific cause, noted some small clotting in the heart, but nothing that the pathologist seemed to think should have killed her.
She’d had three doses of the vaccine. I’ve no idea whether the vaccines were the cause or contributory to her death, but I did feel that if a more open debate about the safety (or otherwise) of the vaccines had been allowed, at least the pathologist might have been open to considering it, even if only to dismiss it for specific reasons.
But, of course, whether the vaccines were responsible or not, there was absolutely no reason for her to have been vaccinated in the first place. Like everyone else who is not vulnerable, she was never at any risk from Covid. She’d had Covid in 2020: a day in bed, slight headache, backache. It held no fears for her, but she wanted to go on holiday.
...
WIND: open discussion will save lives. How many people have been harmed by the vaccine and in what ways will take years to unravel.
But I’d bet that a large part of excess deaths are due to thrombos (blood clots) that directly cause heart attacks. And if they do not, they will likely cause future cardiac disease, as thrombosis (not cholesterol) is the real cause of atherosclerosis. So the death toll will take decades to be counted.
The death and damage to the public by government disinformation (ineffective treatment, ecnomic destruction, educational chaos, etc) can only be slowly repaired, with no one held accountable of course.
Risk of heart inflammation is small but new studies suggest it may take months to fully recover
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo ignited a furor this month when, based on a state analysis purporting to show COVID-19 vaccines were linked to cardiac deaths in young men, he advised men ages 18 to 39 to steer clear of the shots. Scientists slammed his warning and decried the eight-page analysis, which was anonymous and not peer reviewed, for its lack of transparency and flawed statistics.
Still, COVID-19 vaccines do have a rare but worrisome cardiac side effect. Myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause chest pain and shortness of breath, has disproportionately struck older boys and young men who received the shots. Only one out of several thousand in those age groups is affected, and most quickly feel better. A tiny number of deaths have been tentatively linked to vaccine myocarditis around the world. But several new studies suggest the heart muscle can take months to heal, and some scientists worry about what this means for patients long term. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has ordered vaccinemakers Pfizer and Moderna to conduct a raft of studies to assess these risks.
...
“I’m a vaccine advocate, I would still vaccinate children,” says Jane Newburger, a pediatric cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital who has cared for and studied postvaccine myocarditis patients. But Michael Portman, a pediatric cardiologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital who’s also studying patients, says he would hesitate to recommend boosters to healthy teens. “I don’t want to cause panic,” Portman says—but he craves more clarity on the risk-benefit ratio.
...
Most postvaccine myocarditis patients are briefly hospitalized and their symptoms quickly abate. Newburger’s hospital has tracked 22 patients who developed the condition, and she is largely reassured by their healing. Portman agrees: “Many of these kids are asymptomatic after they leave the hospital.”
But what he sees in the youngsters during follow-up appointments nags at him: Although their heart rhythm is normal and they usually feel fine, MRI scans of their heart often show something called late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), which signifies injury to the muscle.
... Subclinical myocarditis may be more common than thought...
...
WIND: when you willfully fail to look for issues for years, risks are indeed “small”. BTW, peer review is a wholly corrupt buddy system where no one makes real criticisms when that would go against the narrative, lest one become a pariah. And who would ask an expert for peer review that regularly criticizes studies! It’s a bunch of foxes all agreeing the henhouse is sound. A country club of intellectual and ethical crooks.
What kind of “science” is it to be an “advocate” based on deeply flawed “evidence”? That very statement shows a conflict of interest; no doctor should ever advocate a position; it puts that doctor on a “team” which leads to non-objective narrative-based thinking.
What kind of ethical scum proceeds to Jab children, knowing that some of them could suffer lifelong harm all for zero benefit? The medical profession fills me with disgust, treating this as if it’s some kind of abstract problem, passing along all the damage, heartbreak, and lifetime of costs on to de facto lab rats who trusted their doctor to be objective, which is not a 'thing' any more. The medical profession has become a non compos mentis ethical sewer. Critical thinking in the profession is all but prohibited (or forced into private thoughts), massively influenced by money and social and professional pressures.
These MDs who have a few simple tests that categorize patient as “OK” aka sub-clinical are working half blind—you don’t know what you don’t know, and that’s the gist of the article. Well if you don’t know, you don’t go jabbing young people and possibly damaging them forever. You as an MD do not have that right, especially when you know damned well that the evidence is overwhelming that young people have everything to lose and nothing to gain from COVID gene therapy Jabs.
The uncertainty is frustrating—but that’s the story of the pandemic, says Walid Gellad, a physician who studies drug safety at the University of Pittsburgh: “Everything that we need to know we end up learning after we needed to know it.”
Does “first do no harm” ring any bells? How about you aholes supporting coercion and government force to Jab people, or lose your job or your schooling? Your profession helped destroy health, lives, plans all based on shit-grade “science”. You did not speak out then, and only now can muster these concerns as some kind of mildly interesting situation of academic interest.
See also:
The true character and scope of the harm caused by the unprecedented mass vaccinations for COVID-19 is just now beginning to become clear. Leading scientific journals have finally begun publishing data corroborating what the underground research community has observed over the last two years, especially in relation to complex problems of immune suppression.
Truly concerning numbers pertaining to both births and mortality are also emerging.
...If, as has been argued, the vaccinations, and especially the boosters, alter the immune profile of recipients such that Covid infections get ‘tolerated’ by the immune system, it’s possible that vaccinated individuals will tend towards a situation of long-term, repeat infections that do not get cleared, and do not present with obvious symptoms, while still promoting systemic damage.
The literature now indicates an extensive substitution in the vaccinated of virus-neutralising antibodies for non-inflammatory ones, a ‘class switch’ from antibodies that work towards clearing the virus from our system, to a category of antibodies whose purpose is to desensitise us to irritants and allergens.
The net effect is that the inflammatory response to Covid infection gets down-regulated (reduced). This means that full-blown infections will present with milder symptoms, and that they won’t get cleared as effectively (partly since fever and inflammation are essential to your body getting rid of a pathogen).
That these developments alone aren’t cause for an immediate halt to the mass vaccinations, as well as thorough investigations, is astonishing.
...
WIND: I don’t know how to judge the credibility of these claims, but it would explain a lot.
A vaccine adviser to the Food and Drug Administration is questioning whether young, healthy people should get new COVID-19 boosters, arguing those shots should be used for older individuals.
“I believe we should stop trying to prevent all symptomatic infections in healthy, young people by boosting them with vaccines containing mRNA from strains that might disappear a few months later,” wrote Dr. Paul A. Offit, an FDA vaccine panel adviser and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in New England Journal of Medicine on Jan. 11.
In his article, Offit cited two studies suggesting that bivalent boosters, which target the original COVID-19 strain and two Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA. 5, do not “elicit superior immune responses.”
WIND: weak sauce, but at least it is some attempt to question idiotic policies.
The U.S. Department of Defense may provide back pay to former service members who were removed for not receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, coming after the Pentagon repealed the mandate, a spokesperson confirmed Friday.
... On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memo (pdf) formally rescinding the vaccine mandate after lawmakers passed a defense spending bill into law in December that required the change. The Pentagon had already stopped discharging service members who didn’t get the vaccine.
...
WIND: how about having a few heads roll, right at the Secretary of Defense, for damaging our military readiness with the idiotic policies? If it isn’t a threat now, how it ever a threat? It wasn’t.
Data indicates Pfizer’s new COVID-19 vaccine could cause a type of stroke in elderly people, two U.S. health agencies said on Jan. 13. The signal was for ischemic stroke, a type of stroke caused by blood clotting. The signal was triggered for people aged 65 and older, the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said in a joint statement.
...
WIND: there are hundreds of safety signals. Tip of the tip of the iceberg.
The difficulty for parents is to sort out symptoms indicative of the FDA acknowledged side effects of myopericarditis and pulmonary embolism. Because of the very high rate of symptomatic side effects, even ECG screening will not be enough. Fortunately, there were no serious adverse events in this study. However, when a cardiotoxic vaccine is administered to millions of adolescents, there are hundreds of thousands of symptomatic cases and the interpretation by parents and healthcare providers is quickly becoming a nightmare. Of great concern, are cases where the symptoms are interpreted as benign yet the child is suffering significant heart damage and later on is set up for sudden cardiac death during sleep or athletic events.
...
WIND: medical tests are extremely limited in scope and validity for diagnosing damage or illness.
Although the CDC acknowledged playing a role in the growing distrust in science, none of their professed forms of atonement, such as promising to share data faster and doing a better job of translating science into policy will restore trust without a process that includes honest debate.
WIND: trust cannot be restored because it never was trustworthy.
An American doctor is joining the calls for the withdrawal of the messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccines, pointing to new research that highlights a connection between the shots and adverse events.
I don’t see how anyone couldn’t be certain that the benefits are outweighing the harms on a population level, or even in the high-risk groups. I don’t see the evidence to support that claim,” Fraiman told The Epoch Times. “But I also can’t say that there’s evidence to support that it’s potentially more harmful, but there’s also uncertainty here. … Given that scenario, I believe that people should not be given the [vaccines] outside of a clinical trial, because we need to figure out … if their benefits outweigh harm or if harm outweighs benefits.”
“The only thing that can answer that question is going to be a randomized trial,” he added.
...
WIND: how novel is that? A randomized trial. How about one not run by Big Pharma or their lap dogs?
Is there a single governmental or educational institution that not vomit-out endless streams of information sewage?
Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told. Public health messaging during the Covid-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from government health authorities, the World Health Organization, and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking.
In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths, as described in the recently released Twitter Files (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms, to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to Covid-19.
They suppressed ‘the truth,’ even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM— misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm).
From fact-checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the UK Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their ‘mis-/dis-information.’
“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation.” — Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC
But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?
...
WIND: children* and idiots* trusted insititutions*** before COVID, and still do. But anyone not still suffering from cognitive dissonance must feel pretty shaken up.
Consensus, whether it be on COVID or climate science or heredity is theology, not science. And last time I checked, a narrative is the antithesis of science. And here we are.
Things are on schedule over in China, where experts lauded the Chinese zero COVID solution as so incredibly successful. Were they fools, or just CCP lackeys? Anyone claiming “success” based on short-term statistics really has no grasp of reality, and lives in a fantasy world.
SEARCH
