Thursday, March 21, 2024

"I don't want to hear about the vaccine!"

 

Recently I had another encounter with someone who told me that they didn’t want to hear about the vaccine after I shared that it caused blood clots, retinal detachment, lupus and other conditions in someone I love.

I myself had a delayed severe allergic reaction and painful pressure in my heart for 3 months. Despite reporting this life-threatening reaction to the V-Safe system, I was prompted by that so-called safety system to get a second dose. I refused and was subsequently threatened at work because I did not submit evidence that I had 2 doses of a vaccine that had triggered a severe and systemic allergic reaction.

3 people in our network died suddenly and unexpectedly immediately after the vaccine (within 24 hours). 1 of those was a young man. An autopsy revealed his heart was twice normal size. 2 other young people we know developed lymphoma (which subsequently resolved), and others in our network developed retinal detachments, lupus, shingles, etc. within days and weeks of being vaccinated.

Crazy as this seems, many adverse events from vaccine are recorded in medical records as occurring in "unvaccinated individuals" because a person didn't count as vaccinated until 2 weeks after their second shot. So, a reaction one week after the 2nd shot is recorded as occurring in an unvaccinated person! This is called the "case counting window bias"

DENIALISM

Yet, 4 people I know – all of them devotees to industrial medicine – flat out told me that they didn’t want to hear ANYTHING negative about the vaccine, including my family’s life-threatening reactions.

These 4 individuals were close, yet obviously cared little for our well-being. 

To be honest, I’m having a difficult time processing the mind-frame of this unwillingness to listen to the life-threatening adverse events of an experimental treatment on close social others.

Clearly, these people love the vaccine and institutional medicine beyond all other human connections.

They love the vaccine uncritically. Any one who shares negative information about the fetishized vaccine is an unhinged Trump supporter, in their view, who needs to be shut down, censored, even if the information they are recounting is true. 

They believe criticizing the vaccine should be a criminal offense.

The love for the vaccine drives the hunt for any and all information that challenges the “safe and effective” slogan, regardless of truth value.

FOIA documents from CDC, FDA, and drug companies must be entirely redacted lest they operate as mal-information by casting doubt on the mantra of safe and effective.

Published journal articles documenting adverse events must be retracted and the authors publicly shamed.

Counter-argument articles sponsored by government agencies, NGOs such as GAVI, and drug companies must be published promptly and publicized widely to counter any shadow of a doubt that the mRNA vaccines are 100 safe and effective.

For example, if published research documents increased rates of blood clots and myocarditis post-vaccination (e.g., see DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2024.01.100  and https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e76) then some alternative study must be published and publicized across all legacy media platforms declaring that the vaccine reduces cardiac death for a year 

(see critique by Vinay Prasad Mar 18, 2024 A flawed paper claims COVID19 vaccines prevent cardiovascular complications for a YEAR after the shot. https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/a-flawed-paper-claims-covid19-vaccines?r=q89bo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web ).

News articles reporting vaccine injuries or published findings regarding adverse events must be taken down as misinformation, even if true.

Social media sharing by people injured by the vaccines must be preemptively deleted before appearing in any stream, regardless of authenticity.

If the vaccines were  truly safe and effective, this level of censorship would not be required.

But for me, the most horrible effect of this vaccine religion and censorship regime is the internalization and performativity of it by ordinary people who really don’t care if the vaccine kills you so long as they don’t have to hear about it, regardless of their affiliation with you.

They don’t want to hear any evidence that contradicts their ultimate faith in the experimental mRNA vaccine forced upon the population with threats of job losses and social isolation.

They are true believers. They love the vaccine. They hate your free speech and they don’t care if you die.

We are truly in the upside down.

 

 

Thursday, March 14, 2024

"Sound Science" Tipped to Benefit Industry

Science today parades as eternal Truth with its priests and disciples attacking all who challenge its mandates and statements of "fact." The premise that facts are never proven, only not dis-proven has been lost in the quasi-religion that now dominates our public policy.

Yet, decades of scholarship, whistle-blowing and news reporting have documented that science is not a homogeneous field with total consensus. Disagreement in science is what drives it forward. 

In addition to the current erasure of disagreement in facts and scientific-informed policy, today scientific findings are regularly subject to distortion and fraud that benefit individual scientists, their institutions and profit-oriented corporations.

Reviewing my notes today, I found this article:

Liza Gross. Seeding Doubt: How Self-Appointed Guardians of “Sound Science” Tip the Scales Toward Industry https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/how-self-appointed-guardians-of-sound-science-tip-the-scales-toward-industry/

[EXCERPTED] Since the mid-1990s, numerous studies have shown that industry-funded research tends to favor its sponsors’ products. 

This effect has been documented in research financed by chemical, pharmaceutical, surgical, food, tobacco, and, we have learned most recently, sugar companies. 

In the 1960s, the sugar industry secretly paid scientists to minimize the role sugar plays in causing heart disease and blame saturated fat instead, according to a study published in the September issue of JAMA Internal Medicine. 

For decades, industry-funded research helped tobacco companies block regulations by undermining evidence that cigarettes kill. Precisely because of the very real risk of bias, prestigious scientific journals have long required researchers to disclose their sources of support. Journalists in pursuit of transparency have good reason to ask, “Who funded it?” 

President Eisenhower's farewell address specifically pointed to the risks of "big science" and this warning is even more relevant today I believe than when made:

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address. Reading copy of the speech [DDE’s Papers as President, Speech Series, Box 38, Final TV Talk (1); NAID #594599]. Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Presidential Home, Abilene Kansas. Accessed October 6, 2015. Available: http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/farewell_address/Reading_Copy.pdf

 

RELATED POSTS

https://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2019/05/how-label-of-propaganda-is-used-by-nyt.html

https://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2017/11/radiation-is-safe-meme.html

https://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2016/05/false-narratives-in-media-echo-chambers.html

Majia's Blog: Public Relations is Propaganda

Majia's Blog: Engineering Consent Through Propaganda

Majia's Blog: Fake News and Naked Subjects

Majia's Blog: US Military Propaganda Program: Inform and Influence ...

Majia's Blog: Japan's Nuclear Utilities Spending on Public Relations

Monday, February 19, 2024

Marginalization, Denial and Censorship are NO ACCIDENT

 

During a Feb. 15 hearing by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Dr. Peter Marks FDA Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research avoided answering a direct question posed by the subcommittee regarding FDA's surveillance of the VAERS database for COVID-19 vaccine injuries. 

Given that the mRNA vaccines are a new technology first rolled out to the public during the COVID-19 pandemic, one would think that regulatory agencies would carefully monitor safety, particularly since these vaccines were "mandated" by the Biden Administration OSHA division and many corporations.

I know from personal experience how hazardous the mRNA technology can be, and I am truly outraged that evidence deemed negative is being ignored and/or censored (as "mal" or "dis" information) while criticism of the vaccines is literally being criminalized.

IGNORING EVIDENCE OF HARM

Dr. Marks referred the question about hazard surveillance to Dr. Daniel Jernigan, director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. Jernigan’s response not only lacks empirical support, but contradicts well documented research findings regarding mRNA vaccine risks:

Megan Redshaw 2/15/2024 Updated: 2/16/2024). US Officials Concede No Active Surveillance on Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 Vaccines. Epoch Times https://www.theepochtimes.com/health/us-officials-concede-no-active-surveillance-on-long-term-effects-of-covid-19-vaccines-5588199?utm_source=ref_share&utm_campaign=copy

“So with regard to myocarditis, we certainly have been monitoring the issue with various different data systems. I think the most recent data really demonstrates that you’re about eight times less likely to get myocarditis if you’re vaccinated compared to those that are unvaccinated,” Dr. Daniel Jernigan, director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases at the CDC responded.

Apparently, Dr. Jernigan hasn’t read the following important study conducted in Israel that found myocarditis coincided with the vax rollouts, not the virus effects:

Sun, C.L.F., Jaffe, E. & Levi, R. Increased emergency cardiovascular events among under-40 population in Israel during vaccine rollout and third COVID-19 wave. Sci Rep 12, 6978 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10928-z

Why would Dr. Jernigan state an uncertain finding of vaccine safety with such inappropriately exaggerated confidence and in so doing trivialize the well-documented risk of myocarditis in young men?

Note that he absolves responsibility for his assertion with the legal out of a faulty recollection through his “I think” caveat.

Notwithstanding his dissembling, what could be motivating this push to promote endless mRNA COVID-19 vaccine boosters and mRNA tech with no consideration of safety risks? What is going on here? Is this where we find ourselves?

Crutchfield P. Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert. Bioethics. 2019 Jan;33(1):112-121. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12496. Epub 2018 Aug 29. PMID: 30157295.

Or is the answer as simply as the reduction of human life into livestock for experimentation and exploitation?

DOCUMENTATION OF LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

"The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects" The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html

SHUTTING DOWN INTERNAL DISSENT

Marty Makary April 3, 2022 FDA Shuts Out Its Own Experts in Authorizing Another Vaccine Booster. The Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-shuts-out-its-own-experts-in-authorizing-another-booster-covid-vaccine-pandemic-science-11649016728

Decisions like this only reinforce the perception that Covid policy is driven by groupthink and politics... Another committee member, Cody Meissner, agrees. Dr. Meissner, chief of pediatric infectious diseases at Tufts Children’s Hospital, told me last week that the fourth dose is “an unanswered scientific question for people with a normal immune system.” A third member of the committee, Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told the Atlantic that he advised his 20-something son to forgo the third shot, which the FDA recommends for everyone 12 and over. ... Two top FDA officials quit the agency in September complaining of undue pressure to authorize boosters. Marion Gruber, former director of the Office of Vaccine Research and Review, and her deputy, Philip Krause, later wrote about the lack of data to support a broad booster authorization. Hours after the FDA authorized the fourth dose, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave its formal approval to the move—also without convening its external vaccine experts

AND then there are these articles, among others, voicing scientific and medical skepticism about the risk-benefit calculus being deployed by the FDA and WH:

Philip Krause and Luciana Borio March 28, 2022 You Likely Don’t Need a Fourth Covid Shot Unless you’re at high risk, the initial two vaccine doses are enough. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/you-likely-dont-need-a-fourth-covid-shot-booster-dose-pfizer-moderna-vaccine-omicron-ba-2-ba2-11648498217

Dr. Krause is a consultant to the World Health Organization and was deputy director of FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, 2011-21. Dr. Borio is a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations and was director for medical and biodefense preparedness policy at the National Security Council, 2017-19

See also Constanze Kuhlmann, Carla Konstanze Mayer, Mathilda Claassen, Tongai Maponga, Wendy A Burgers,  Roanne Keeton, et al. (2022, January 18, 2022). Breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 omicron despite mRNA vaccine booster dose. The Lancet.DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00090-3

IGNORING CONTRARY EVIDENCE

Israeli study shows 4th shot of COVID-19 vaccine not able to block Omicron. (2022, January 17). MSN.Com https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israeli-study-shows-4th-shot-of-covid-19-vaccine-not-able-to-block-omicron/ar-AASRT8Q

Lock, S. (2022, January 11). Repeated Covid boosters not viable strategy against new variants, WHO experts warn. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/repeated-covid-boosters-not-viable-strategy-against-new-variants-who-experts-warn

CENSORED

This study cited here was algorithmically censored in 2021. I know because my posted comments online with this doi (article locator number) were censored. Here is the citation and the link to the press release for your reference:

SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Impairs Endothelial Function via Downregulation of ACE 2
Yuyang Lei , Jiao Zhang , Cara R. Schiavon, Ming He, Lili Chen, Hui Shen, Yichi Zhang, Qian Yin , Yoshitake Cho , Leonardo Andrade , Gerald S. Shadel , Mark Hepokoski, Ting Lei, Hongliang Wang, Jin hang, Jason X.-J. Yuan, Atul Malhotra, Uri Manor, Shengpeng Wang, Zu-Yi Yuan, John Y-J. Shyy Originally published31 Mar 2021https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318902Circulation Research. 2021;128:1323–1326

Other studies documented also that the spike protein, detached from the rest of the virus, elicits cell signalling in human cells, which "may promote pulmonary vacular remodeling and PAH [pulmonary arterial hypertension] as well as other cardiovascular complications":

Yuichiro J. Suzuki1,* and Sergiy G. Gychka SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Elicits Cell Signaling in Human Host Cells: Implications for Possible Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccines. Vaccines 2021, 9(1), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9010036
Here is an instructive excerpt from this research study:

3. SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Elicits Cell Signaling in Human Cells
It was found that the treatment of cultured primary human pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (SMCs) or human pulmonary artery endothelial cells with the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 subunit is sufficient to promote cell signaling without the rest of the viral components [21]. Furthermore, our analysis of the postmortem lung tissues of patients who died of COVID-19 has determined that these patients exhibited pulmonary vascular wall thickening, a hallmark of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) [21]. Based on these results, we proposed that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (without the rest of the viral components) triggers cell signaling events that may promote pulmonary vascular remodeling and PAH as well as possibly other cardiovascular complications [21,22].

I suspect that the hundreds of instances of myocarditis and pericarditis investigated but then dismissed as “rare” by the FDA are the tip of the iceberg. See the FDA presentation here if it hasn't been censored already: https://www.fda.gov/media/150054/download 

One study provides an explanation of how  this might occur in their description of the circulation of the spike protein:

Circulating SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Antigen Detected in the Plasma of mRNA-1273 Vaccine Recipients

Alana F. Ogata†1,2,3, Chi-An Cheng†1,2,3, Michaël Desjardins†3,4,5, Yasmeen Senussi1, Amy C. Sherman3,4, Megan Powell4, Lewis Novack4, Salena Von4, Xiaofang Li6, Lindsey R. Baden*3,4,6, David R. Walt*1,2,3. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075 by guest on 25 May 2021 

  

We have passed the rubicon so well described by G. Agamben, before he was censored and cancelled for challenging the governmental response to the pandemic.