Find the "C" word

[WTPUSA]

Source. sent to me from a friend

Adults have sharply higher risks of being diagnosed with heart, skin, and psychiatric conditions for at least 90 days after they receive Covid vaxs, a peer-reviewed study of almost 300,000 people in California has shown. The researchers examined new diagnoses given to the same people before and after they were vaccinated to see whether the shots changed the risk of new health problems. The study’s researchers are a group from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center system in LA. Their findings were published in Nature Cardiovascular Research in December. They found that people were about 21% more likely to receive a new diagnosis in the 3 months after a shot, compared to the 3 months before. With almost 240 million American adults jabbed, the rise translates into millions of extra new medical problems found in the months after vaccination, and tens of millions worldwide.

 

Serious conditions such as hypertension were about 25% more likely to be diagnosed in the 3 months following a shot than the 3 months before, the researchers found. Depression, eczema, diabetes, and cellulitis were 10% to 20% more likely. Myocarditis diagnoses had the highest additional risk. They were about 2.6 times as likely overall, with an even higher risk in men. Myocarditis is a known side effect of the mRNAs, so the fact it had a particularly high rate of extra diagnoses provides strong evidence that the signal the researchers found was real.

Overall, the researchers reported that the 284,000 China virus-vaccinated adults they examined received almost 6,000 additional diagnoses of health conditions in the 90 days after being jabbed compared to the 90 days before.  With about 237 million American adults vaccinated, that estimate would translate into about 5 million extra diagnoses for problems like diabetes in the 3 months following the shots. Worldwide, the number could be up to 25 million.

The researchers also noted that in a smaller sample of adults infected with Covid, new diagnoses for health conditions rose about 40% in the 3 months after infection compared to the 3 months before. Viral infections are both a marker for and a potential cause of ill-health. Further, people are likely visit their doctors both while they are sick with Covid and shortly after they recover. Those contacts provide a chance for them to receive new diagnoses. In contrast, people generally receive Covid shots at clinics or pharmacies, not from their doctors, so the chance that the process of receiving a new shot will lead to a diagnosis is minimal.

Thus, if China-virus shots are not harmful, mass vaccinations should not impact the timing of illnesses or their diagnoses. New diagnoses should be scattered randomly before and after the shots.  In fact, people who are feeling ill when they are due for a vaccination may be likely to delay the jab and go to a physician instead. They may then receive a diagnosis that would be counted as occurring before the shot, not after. This “healthy vaccine bias” should mean that new illness diagnoses are less likely for a few days after vaccination than before, even if the shots have no effect. As a result, the 20%  increase in common diagnoses after vaccination is particularly stunning.

Meanwhile, researchers in Hong Kong independently found an even sharper increase in autoimmune “flares” following Covid shots. The risk of new episodes of lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and other serious autoimmune conditions roughly doubled following the shots in a group of 562 patients with those conditions they followed, compared to 1,055 who did not. The paper was published February in the Journal of Clinical Rheumatology and Immunology.

But not all vaccines carried the autoimmune risk. Only mRNA shots did. Chinese-style inactivated virus vaccines did not. Hong Kong used both types of jabs, making a direct comparison possible. The researchers suggested that the mRNA shots cause the flares by stimulating a specific immune receptor that causes the release of inflammatory cytokines.  “Risk-benefit considerations in patients with active rheumatic disease may favor inactivated virus rather than mRNA vaccines to avoid the risk of flare-ups of any severity” the researchers wrote. The United States does not allow the use of Chinese inactivated Covid vaccines.

 

“COVID drove the evolution of fact-checking,” according to the Misinformation Review, a publication of the Harvard’s Kennedy School. By February 2021, Facebook announced it would “remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19,” specifying 4 classes of posts, saying: “This includes claims such as: 

• COVID-19 is man-made or manufactured;
• Vaccines are not effective at preventing the disease they are meant to protect against;
• It’s safer to get the disease than to get the vaccine;
• Vaccines are toxic, dangerous or cause autism.”

--COVID-19’s Lab Origins. As soon as the COVID-19 pandemic swept the globe, observers speculated the virus may have originated at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), where America’s National Institutes of Health funded research into the “bat coronavirus.” The online truth industry immediately moved to crush this story. The Washington post’s fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, responded to Senator Cruz (R-Texas) by tweeting, “It is virtually impossible for this virus jump from the lab.” PolitiFact dismissed the lab theory as a “debunked conspiracy theory,” and factCheck.org (which is funded by google, Facebook, and the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation) called it “baseless.” But just a few months into the Biden regime , Kessler wrote a new story describing “how the Wuhan lab-leak theory suddenly became credible.” Kessler’s so-called “new” evidence dated back as far as July 2020. NBs reporter ken dilanian admitted facts substantiating a lab origin for the virus was “dismissed at the time, because it was the Trump administration.” The uber-liberal new york times White House reporter Maggie Haberman defended her industry, stating the fact that the allegation came from Trump and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo “made this instantly political.” It appears political considerations moved the liberal media’s about-face, as well. Now, the Department of Energy concluded COVID-19 most likely originated from a lab leak. The FBI came to the same conclusion in 2021 with “moderate confidence.”

Some fact-checkers eventually owned up to their errors. NewsGuard, which ranks whole websites based on their alleged peddling of misinformation, made at least 21 COVID-related corrections after it “either mischaracterized the sites’ claims about the lab leak theory, referred to the lab leak as a ‘conspiracy theory,’ or wrongly grouped together unproven claims about the lab leak with the separate, false claim that the COVID-19 virus was man-made without explaining that one claim was unsubstantiated, and the other was false.”  Facebook removed the lab origins from its verboten list in May 2021, just 3 months after adding it, but maintains all other banned COVID topics. Are their guidelines on those stories any more reliable?

 

--Wearing Face Masks. During the pandemic, 39 states imposed mask mandates, triggering public backlash and leading social media to quash questions about masks’ effectiveness. YouTube suspended Senator Paul (R-Ky.) in August 2021 for saying, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” Twitter also locked the account of Trump medical adviser Dr. Scott Atlas in October 2020 for tweeting, “Masks work? NO.”

 

Yet research before and after the pandemic provides plenty of reasons to question the efficacy of face masks. As far back as 2015, the BMJ reviewed health care workers’ practices and found that cloth masks provide “almost 0%” filtration of viruses” and “may result in increased risk of infection.” One year before the COVID-19 pandemic, the world health organization admitted “there is no evidence that [wearing face masks] is effective in reducing transmission” of viruses. Other pre-pandemic studies came to similar conclusions, and subsequent research has borne this out. A 2021 study of two school districts in the same North Dakota county found schools that imposed a mask mandate had a higher percentage of COVID-19 cases than those without one.

 

Despite 125 years of surgical masking, nobody has ever shown that the practice improves patient outcomes or prevents infections among hospital staff. In fact, the evidence that surgical masking does anything is every bit as lacking as the evidence that community masking does anything. To the extent that surgeons know this, they continue to mask because they regard the measure as a traditional procedure important to put patients at ease. There has always been a substantial theatrical element to the use of face masks, in other words – first in hospitals, and more recently among the population at large – but nobody can show that it prevents infection.

 

--COVID-19 Vaccine. Claims that vaccination prevented anyone from becoming infected with, or infecting others with, COVID-19 drove government efforts to convince — or force — Americans to take the shot. But public health authorities long expressed skepticism about such claims. In December 2020, WHO’s chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, said, “I don’t believe we have the evidence of any of the vaccines to be confident that it’s going to prevent people from actually getting the infection.” Researchers from Harvard and Johns Hopkins University concluded in February 2021, COVID-19 Vaccines May Not Prevent Nasal SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Facebook instead chose to believe assertions made by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don’t get sick” — claims that should have been settled definitively when a fully vaccinated Dr. Fauci tested positive for COVID last June.

 

--Natural Immunity. Facebook’s rule against claiming “it’s safer” to get the coronavirus than take the COVID-19 shot has often silenced discussions of natural immunity. Yet a meta-study published in The Lancet, funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, concluded, “The level of protection afforded by previous infection is at least as high, if not higher than that provided by two-dose vaccination using high-quality mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech).” That is the last in a line of studies to come to such a conclusion. Last June, the New England Journal of Medicine found natural immunity’s “protection was higher than that conferred after the same time had elapsed since receipt of the 2nd dose of the vaccine among previously uninfected persons.” That should have come as little surprise, since 6 months earlier CDC epidemiologist ben silk told The WSJ “surviving a previous infection now provided greater protection” than vaccination. That echoes the findings of an Israeli study from August 2021. In July 2020, the BBC reported some people had developed T cell immunity to the virus before COVID-19 existed. The rule has also tamped down talk of the negative side effects caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.

 

Advocates of “pandemic amnesty” argue that no one could know the results of scientific tests in the midst of a once-in-a-century public health crisis (although many of the studies occurred before or near the beginning of the outbreak). But social media platforms have not restricted their disinformation to matters of public health, extending their bias deeply into politics.

 

Once upon a time, Fauci wanted Americans to know vaccines had risks and scientists couldn’t always give people the answers they wanted. It was 2002, after the anthrax and Sept. 11 attacks. Fauci was pushing for a big rise in federal bioterrorism spending for his institute.

In April 2002, as the United States was beginning to gear up to invade Iraq, fauci gave an interview called Expanded Biodefense Role for the National Institutes of Health. But it has vanished, except on the Internet Archive, the non-profit site that permanently saves pages upon request. It disappeared between 2009 and 2013, according to the archive’s records.

Fauci’s main pitch was a program that rapidly would match novel genetically engineered pathogens to the best possible treatments, a program he called: “bug to drug in 24 hours.” If this idea sounds like a multi-billion-dollar solution in search of a problem to you, you are not alone.  Separately, he suggested what he called “pre-clinical detection,” which the article defined as “diagnostics before infection takes place.” 

Then Fauci turned to the issue of vaccines, specifically the smallpox vaccine. Smallpox had been eliminated globally in the wild by the late 1970s, and routine vaccinations had ended. Smallpox is highly contagious and which has a 30% death rate - approximately 100 times the death rate from Covid. Even so, routine smallpox vaccinations wouldn’t necessarily make sense, Fauci said: “…on the pros and the cons of preemptive versus reactive vaccination.… What I’m going to recommend is that we have some sort of an open public forum or dialogue, like a town meeting...We really have to make the public aware of relative risk, real risk, and perceived risk...We need to cultivate that type of thinking on the part of the American people… We’re going to have to live with risks...The medical community must be prepared to admit that it doesn’t know or have the answer, and that saying otherwise can lead to even more problems. The medical community and the public health officials need to be able to say, ‘I don’t know,’ at the same time that they say what they do know, and to give the calculated level of risk...If you act like you do know and something [unexpected] happens, then you lose all of your credibility…When the general public think of science, they think of absolutes, as if there were a mathematical formula. What they don’t experience, or are not privy to, is the completely iterative nature of science…Science consists of starts and stops, until you get the right answer...When there isn’t an absolute answer, the scientific community and the public health community still want to give to the public what they demand... The public needs to realize that science may not be able to give you the answer right away."

Live with risks? Instead of shutting society in a futile attempt to stop them? Wow, how things changed with the China virus! One wonders what 2002 science may not be able to give you the answer right away fauci would have made of 2020 let’s make everyone take mRNA vaccines based on completely novel biotechnology?

 

End the abuse of emergency powers. When we let government leaders break the law by declaring emergencies, they'll declare emergencies in order to break the law. A public emergency that involves any restrictions or mandates on the population's civil rights should require due process of law or a supermajority vote of both houses of Congress.

It is unethical and immoral to demand that someone take a medical intervention against their will:

1. Enact a law that all drug (vaccine) mandates are illegal. For the military, education, HCWs, to receive health care (organ donation), play a sport, you name it, etc. That means that exemptions for religious or medical reasons would be irrelevant and also illegal.

2. In that same law, make it illegal to demand someone's vaccine status for any reason.

How about no longer giving the Director of the NIAID a "permanent" appointed position ? No one person should have access to that much power / $$$ along with the ability to affect every aspect of public health for decades. And now he will determine who will be the next "dictator" of public health??? That's another recipe for more of the same.

Delete all records of vaccine status from government databases that could lead to vaccine passports and other forms of medical tyranny.

Sunset the Patriot Act. Government was already too powerful before 9-11. The Patriot Act has enabled government to weaponize law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and even the controlled media, against anyone who questions corrupt and downright bad government policy. An unelected bureaucracy can now use and abuse secret FISA warrants, unprecedented surveillance capabilities, and universal data collection by big tech partners to spy on, intimidate, and silence anyone who disagrees or might potentially disagree with them -- including members of Congress and the President of the United States. As we have seen during the era of unconstitutional COVID lockdowns, masking, and mandated vaccines, this power has been used not to combat disinformation, but to hide the truth.

Further reading:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/national-security-adviser-claims-lab-escape-origin-of-covid-19-lacks-definitive-answer_5083709.html?utm_source=ref_share&src_src=ref_share&utm_campaign=mb-cc&src_cmp=mb-cc

The Energy Department has a special division that, as part of its mission to track and mitigate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, specializes in the study of biological weapons such as viruses.

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-energy-department-lab-investigating-covid-knows-what-its-talking-about/