Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[Belligerent Savant]

@Humble_Analysis

The CDC needs to be disbanded and it's leadership needs to be imprisoned.

@ZackStieber

Lots of talk of post-COVID-vaccination myocarditis in newly obtained CDC emails. One hospital reported three cases in two weeks



Another reporter alerting CDC to three "probable vaccine related case[s] of myopericarditis" in young males



Top CDC officials ordered all questions regarding potential myocarditis cases directed to them.



CDC recruited staffers specifically to examine post-vaccination myocarditis reports



Pediatrician reports one case at hospital, says aware of at least four others. "Post-Pfizer vaccine myocarditis in healthy teens."



Looping in American Academy of Pediatrics. CDC wanted "to centralize our coordination" with a single group rather than dealing with "multiple provider organizations."



CDC official says providers weren't reporting post-vaccination cases of myocarditis to VAERS despite requirement to do so under EUA.



Top CDC vaccine safety officials started looking for experts on myocarditis weeks after U.S. Department of Defense and Israel reported elevated number of cases



Confusion inside CDC on "what is and has been being done" on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents.



CDC workers directed to conduct "preprocess screening for myocarditis," using protocol already in place for severe allergic shock.



Pediatrician reports "more and more cases or youth who are developing myocarditis and MIS-C-like syndromes within a short time (2-4 days) after the second COVID-19 vaccine."



Emails were obtained through FOIA and cover a single week, 05/10/2021 to 05/17/2021

As the emails were being sent, the vaccine safety work group for CDC's advisory panel said there were "relatively few reports of myocarditis" after vaccination and that "most cases appear to be mild."


Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the CDC director, told a briefing on April 27, 2021, regarding myocarditis that "we have not seen a signal, and we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given."

https://twitter.com/Humble_Analysis/sta ... 27522?s=20

[Grizzly]

For the record, this is NOT an endorsement for JOK, or PV but I am curious why now, too, after the heavy censorship of his Pfizer sting. For your edification amusement or scorn. His side. Before it's censored perhaps?

[Grizzly]

Sasha Latypova - COVID-19 Countermeasures: Evidence of the Intent to Harm
https://rumble.com/v289h2g-sasha-latypova-covid-19-countermeasures-evidence-of-the-intent-to-harm.html

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Quick drive-by; no time to look at other threads.

But for those here that may (quietly) still be clenching tightly to the mask narratives: it's over. The NY Times has capitulated.




https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/opin ... -work.html

The Mask Mandates Did Nothing. Will Any Lessons Be Learned?

Feb. 21, 2023, 7:00 p.m. ET

The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous.

“There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”

But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?

“Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson.

What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?

“They were convinced by non-randomized studies, flawed observational studies.”

What about the utility of masks in conjunction with other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene, physical distancing or air filtration?

“There’s no evidence that many of these things make any difference.”

These observations don’t come from just anywhere. Jefferson and 11 colleagues conducted the study for Cochrane, a British nonprofit that is widely considered the gold standard for its reviews of health care data. The conclusions were based on 78 randomized controlled trials, six of them during the Covid pandemic, with a total of 610,872 participants in multiple countries. And they track what has been widely observed in the United States: States with mask mandates fared no better against Covid than those without.

No study — or study of studies — is ever perfect. Science is never absolutely settled. What’s more, the analysis does not prove that proper masks, properly worn, had no benefit at an individual level. People may have good personal reasons to wear masks, and they may have the discipline to wear them consistently. Their choices are their own.

But when it comes to the population-level benefits of masking, the verdict is in: Mask mandates were a bust. Those skeptics who were furiously mocked as cranks and occasionally censored as “misinformers” for opposing mandates were right. The mainstream experts and pundits who supported mandates were wrong. In a better world, it would behoove the latter group to acknowledge their error, along with its considerable physical, psychological, pedagogical and political costs.

Don’t count on it. In congressional testimony this month, Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called into question the Cochrane analysis’s reliance on a small number of Covid-specific randomized controlled trials and insisted that her agency’s guidance on masking in schools wouldn’t change. If she ever wonders why respect for the C.D.C. keeps falling, she could look to herself, and resign, and leave it to someone else to reorganize her agency.

(More at link)


Expect similar acknowledgements at some point -- eventually -- Re: mRNA product harms and human interventions (this is already in play, but the 'liberal' bastions like the NYTimes will be among the last to wave the white flag).

There is yet the potential for a few scapegoats to be sacrificed.

We shall see.

But the core criminals, unfortunately, will likely go unscathed.

[Belligerent Savant]

Worth moving this here to accompany my prior post above.

...

3 yrs later, after millions were terminated from their jobs, and livelihoods (and basic human rights) were damaged/ruined, we have this admission from mainstream press:

Immunity acquired from a Covid infection provides strong, lasting protection against the most severe outcomes of the illness, according to research published Thursday in The Lancet — protection, experts say, that’s on par with what’s provided through two doses of an mRNA vaccine.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... -rcna71027

"At least as high, if not higher" immunity

Truly, a vile clown world.

On EDIT: per this chart (taken from the Lancet study), prior infection is demonstrably better than any covid 'vaccine':

[Grizzly]

FBI Tracking Fingerprints of UNVACCINATED Teachers; New CDC Codes to Track the Unvaxxed

[Belligerent Savant]

.

I'll add that -- for whatever it's worth -- while I believe the covid strain to be the result of lab experimentation, i'm agnostic, at the moment, about whether the leak was an accident or intentional.

It may well be this was all planned years in advance, timed in part for advances allowing internet connections to be fast and efficient enough to allow for white-collar work remotely, while also permitting smaller/supply chain business to be absorbed by/sold to larger entities, or otherwise die on the vine (in turn leading to long-term unemployed masses highly reliant on govt handouts, opening the door for eventual UBI and other Great Reset-esque initiatives, etc)

If it was an accidental leak, no doubt power structures capitalized and improvised/refined their approach as months went by.

If it was purposeful from the start, it explains the efficiency of conditioning and psychological tactics inflicted at a wide scale from the onset, not to mention the READY TO DEPLOY marketing/propaganda campaigns that looked polished and crisp within the first ~month of this 'pandemic'.

One can argue, however, that these tactics have been fine-tuned for years, waiting for the right set of circumstances to be unleashed, intentionally or not.

Still, right now, as of May 2021, all things considered, my vote is this was no 'accident'.

Trying to understand this scenario/argument, how does vaccine fit in to this hypothetical scenario for you?

The mRNA/gene therapy thread touches on this. I'd suggest taking a gander to avoid repetition here.

If anything, the manner and messaging of 'vaccine' rollout (coercion/blackmail tactics; 'vaccine passports', segregated seating at sporting events in the most ardent pro-lockdown states, etc.) only further tip the scales towards intent rather than accident. But at this time nothing is certain, needless to say.

These shots have been distributed for mass deployment to the public with less than 1 year of trials; 'EUA' designation for a virus with an 0.2 IFR and over 99% survival rate for the majority. They are also experimental; unprecedented use of this mRNA tech on humans. How many that have taken the shots have been provided informed consent? How many were told they are not currently FDA approved? Everyone taking them right now are participating in trials, wittingly or not. There is ZERO information or available data on long-term side effects.

Near-term side effects don't look any better. Some here will dismiss VAERS (even though VAERS was considered wholly reliable prior to 2021 -- funny, that), but anecdotal + official tallies of adverse effects, including near-term death, don't look very good. And we're barely ~6 months in.

Interesting to note that when I offered the above observations in this thread back in 2021, some responses compared RI to ‘QAnon’/‘Q’.

Yet here we are, in mid-Feb 2023, and even mainstream discourse is now largely acknowledging much of the above.

Funny, that.

[Harvey]

Your instincts were right - from the beginning, but you also acted upon those instincts from the beginning.

It took me longer than it should have to act, despite my early instincts. I'm not counting my total refusal to participate in the hysteria throughout (I did not participate - at all) but more, the failure to grasp, argue or finally to articulate my case, from the beginning. Partly through wishing to respect other peoples strongly held views, which harmed my own understanding. Partly because I enjoyed the first lockdown, despite the hardship it caused to me personally. I spent most of it outdoors, rambling or cycling on empty roads. I didn't understand how much damage it was doing to the fabric of our societies. I should have understood immediately what a powerful weapon the lockdowns (and mandates) would prove to be, and should have resisted them them from the very beginning instead of as I did, merely behaving as though they did not exist.

[Belligerent Savant]

I wasn't immune to the lures that initial lockdowns provided, either -- more time to enjoy 'empty spaces'/less-crowded strolls or bike rides, etc, as you allude. Indeed, my line of work became entirely remote for a while.
But among those that rely on income, the 'laptop classes' (and so-called 'intellectuals', many in academia, and of course, scores of grifters that claimed to be experts in health) enjoyed it all too much, and apparently gave little thought to -- or helped extend -- the egregious harms caused (among many other psychological/social/'herd mentality'/conditioning -- and greed -- factors at play)

[Belligerent Savant]

[Grizzly]

Heart attacks in young people aged 25-44 up 30% What?!

I can't believe this! /s *Baby shit green

[youtube][/youtube] Can't find it on youtube or CBS.

https://noagendasocial.com/@Some1Actually/109874837055031084

https://static.noagendasocial.com/media_attachments/files/109/874/833/339/370/252/original/f8d945e221b086c6.mp4

check YOURSELF

[DrEvil]

Unvaccinated more likely to have heart attack, stroke after COVID, study finds

Being fully vaccinated reduced the risk by about 41 percent.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02 ... udy-finds/

[stickdog99]

Unvaccinated more likely to have heart attack, stroke after COVID, study finds

Being fully vaccinated reduced the risk by about 41 percent.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02 ... udy-finds/

Hmmmm. Interesting that you have to pay $35 to get access the actual design and methodology of this study.

I mean, this study was funded by the NIH. So why the paywall?

[Harvey]

Unvaccinated more likely to have heart attack, stroke after COVID, study finds

Being fully vaccinated reduced the risk by about 41 percent.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/02 ... udy-finds/

Most mRNA related deaths occurred during the first three days after alleged vaccination and most of the rest in the remaining fortnight before the alleged vaccinated were registered as vaccinated. Is this fact reflected in the study?

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^

That article -- not a study, mind you -- is a good example of how bias, confounders, and faulty source data can present a scenario that, more often than not, does not reflect reality [arstechnica sharing that piece with no qualifiers at all is not surprising]. Of course, one can argue the same for those raising flags about mRNA product harms. As such, I share these added perspectives, specific to the above-cited study, as additional consideration for the discerning minds among us. Note: the author of the first substack piece below editorializes quite a bit, but his findings and conclusions are sound, at least as far as interpreting the quality of the data presented in the article in question:

https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/and-so-on

First, about the author of the above piece, per his Twitter handle:

Dr Jonathan Engler MB ChB DipPharmMed LLB
@jengleruk
Medically and legally qualified. Dad to 4 “adult” kids, grandpa to one, husband. The dystopian Covid response is an existential threat to everything we value.

The piece itself:

Mr Law, Health and Technology
Feb 21

Today I have just been linked to yet another one of these incredible articles [1] being used by Covidians to claim that Covid-19 infection is worse for your cardiac health than the vaccines.

[1] https://twitter.com/joshg99/status/1627985971835768832

Josh Guetzkow
@joshg99
New "study" making the rounds alleging to show COVID jabs protect against major cardiovascular events is another steaming pile of garbage & uses synthetic data paid for by BMGF [Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation].

Only 12% of the synthetic patient population have ever been jabbed. WTF?

The Article



This nonsense appeared as a ‘Letter’ in the Journal of the Americal College of Cardiology. Presumably it was submitted as a letter to bypass peer review - as such letters are usually only proof read by the editors of a journal.



Note the comment in the above… Letters should not be used to introduce new materials. Yet, this is exactly what this letter from Joy Jiang and the N3C consortium does.



But wait… as Bret Weinstein would say, it’s even worse than that…

Dissection

I am not even going to bother dissecting the statistics or findings made in this ‘letter’ because, while they are full of errors, there is something even more glaring that renders this paper as complete rubbish and not worthy of your attention…

The Data Source

The data source for this ‘letter’ was the National Covid Cohort Collaborative or N3C.



What, you may ask, is N3C?



N3C is advertised as being an aggregate data source for Covid data developed and run by the NIH… except all is not quite as it seems.



N3C is actually funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and whilst run by NIH, is partnered with Syntegra - a purveyor of purely synthetic health records data. Syntegra themselves are also funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation…



Even better, the lead author of the ‘Letter’ - Joy Jiang, only has a Bachelor’s degree (yes, she is currently studying towards her MD and PhD) and, I am also told this morning, she was one of the talents in the Cathay’s Connected World fundraiser that raised money for… you guessed it, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.



Are you starting to see what’s going on here?

Every day they are trying to brainwash and gaslight us into believing that people affected by vaccine injuries were actually harmed by Covid-19. They are so desperate to get headlines proclaiming that the disease, and not the failed cure, is the problem.

...

Further:

@jengleruk
·
Feb 21

Aside from the data origin issue, this seems to say:

"we are aware that cardiac events have been reported within a few days of vaccine so we exclude the 14 days after injection to avoid survivorship bias"

A more insane design would be hard to find.



@fishfishjump
·
Feb 22
Replying to @jengleruk

Is there a reason why the sample size for vaccinated individuals are so small? The size for unvaccinated to partial and fully vaccinated is about 8.6x. Does this reflect true population?

@jengleruk
Replying to @fishfishjump

Yes, that has been noticed too. The whole study looks like it's based on heavily "curated" data.

https://twitter.com/jengleruk/status/16 ... 56640?s=20

Another doctor chimes in:

Andrew Bostom, MD, MS
@andrewbostom

Replying to @celinegounder

There was no evaluation of (likely major) effect modification by prior infection/natural immunity, & curiously, the only truly unconfounded data, i.e., RCT data from the Pfizer & Moderna C19 vax mRNA trials have an opposite signal of increased CoViD death risk

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4072489

https://twitter.com/andrewbostom/status ... 72259?s=20


While I'm here, we should also include this recent paper which includes FAUCI as a co-author (I believe Grizzly linked this in the mRNA thread as well):

https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/ ... 31-3128(22)00572-8

PERSPECTIVE| VOLUME 31, ISSUE 1, P146-157, JANUARY 11, 2023

Rethinking next-generation vaccines for coronaviruses, influenza viruses, and other respiratory viruses

David M. Morens
Jeffery K. Taubenberger
Anthony S. Fauci

They can fool (an apparently large contingent) much of the time, but they will never fool all the people all of the time. And the number of people waking up to the parlor tricks grow with each passing month. Unfortunately, it seems there remain, even here, a subset that refuse to own up to how badly they've been played. In time, perhaps.