Imagine. This was article was published 2 or 3 years ago. Be honest, would your first impression be that clearly, The Times, one of UK’s oldest and most respected newspapers had suddenly gone rogue? Turned “anti-vaxxer?” Anti-science? Wanting to kill the proverbial grandma? Likely, you would not have even seen it, it would not have been written, no one would have dared, not wanting carte-blanche labels thrown at them via the court of public opinion. No one wanted to risk losing their jobs or reputation. Factual, academic-based information be dammed. History will look back, as not one of the most rational of times. Yet, a very fascinating period highlighting the power of Marketing in Public Policy at a scale.
Times change. This is now allowed. However, if you, like many, have been following medical or Academic data from a couple of countries, then you know this is nothing new or unexpected. This was fairly obvious as far back as Fall 2021. In fact, as time goes by, the ‘may’ will change, and you can be sure to see more and more of this type of reporting under the guise of, ‘but we didn’t know.’ Yet that is an excuse and not a correct statement. However, that politicians and bureaucrats abhor admitting mistakes is.
Remember, even the claim of “very rare” per shot, which at least in the EU, is defined as a case incidence of about 0.01 –the USA has no such, specific definition for medications– means severe side effects can easily go into the millions or higher, when the medical interventions, as per the WHO, now surpass over 13 billion doses administered. Since many have gotten it multiple times, and if you add all of the severe side effects conditions together, plus the misdiagnosed ones. Add to this that the risk/benefit ratio of these interventions breaks if you are healthy and under 65. But contextual, medical nuance was lost for a while and very much frowned upon by many. Blank labels were far easier. The best we can all do now is change that outlook to give the attention and care to those who need it.
“The secondary analysis of the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines showed that the Pfizer trial had a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group.”
“The Moderna trial had a 6% higher risk of serious adverse events among vaccine recipients.”
If interested in reading the British Medical Journal’s paper The Times article is based on, I invite you to check it out but the reality is this one is far from unique, outside the fact that it made headlines. In fact, a number of studies have come out since 2021, that began exposing how dogma, such as the “Safe and Effective,” line, was effectively just marketing at best or propaganda at worst.
Highlighting concerns, such as know issues like Original Antigenic Sin, that the spike protein lingered for over year, or that it traveled throughout body, collecting in organs, even if in smaller amounts. Contradicting many of the claims the CDC and the NIH pushed. Case in point, that these Covid treatments would provide immunity and stop transmission, ignoring that it was known, albeit not well downstreamed in early in 2021 that they did elicited a very weak IgA antibody response, which is vital to stop the virus being transmitted through mucus membranes, such as when breathing. Instead over focusing on an IgG response, which help alleviate the possibility of serious Covid symptoms. The fact that these real claims were considered “anti-vaxxer” theories to be discarded on exposure leaves a lot to be desired, if the concept of informed consent matters. Other issues appearing include the unexpected increase of IgG4 antibodies after doses shots of mRNA and their connection with innate Cancer surveillance; the seemingly quality control issues creating junk proteins in people’s bodies –which the mainstream media has quickly decreed as harmless– when no one can objectively claim this, since simply we do not yet know. Just like the denial and labeling of the Covid Lab Leak Theory as mere rants of rednecks and flat-earthers, one thing to learn from the Covid pandemic is that bureaucrats can be as out of touch, with the road to hell truly being paved with good intentions and a fresh coating of corruption.
The wheels of real Science can sometimes be slow and gradual, moving only when new data comes in. This has been the way it has always been, so I fully expect for people to eventually look back at those darker times with a contextual and nuance that may differ from what was pushed via faulty public policy.
Leave a Reply