CDC: Gee, Maybe Young Men Might Be At Risk for Myocarditis From Covid Vaccinations Like Those Conspiracy Theorists We Pressured Internet Monopolies To Deplatform Accurately Claimed

I could swear this was a Conspiracy Theory That Would Get You Deplatformed just last week.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Wednesday said younger males should consider waiting longer between doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines in order to reduce the risk of a rare form of heart inflammation.

In an update on its website, the agency suggested an eight-week interval between the first and second doses of a primary mRNA vaccine schedule.

The "mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at the FDA-approved or FDA-authorized intervals, but a longer interval may be considered for some populations. While absolute risk remains small, the relative risk for myocarditis is higher for males ages 12-39 years, and this risk might be reduced by extending the interval between the first and second dose," the agency said.

Whoops!

Whoopsie!

How long has this been denied for?

The CDC cited studies in adolescents and adults showing the small risk of myocarditis associated with vaccines might be reduced and peak antibody responses and vaccine effectiveness may be increased with an interval longer than four weeks.

"Extending the interval beyond 8 weeks has not been shown to provide additional benefit. There are currently no data available for children ages 11 years and younger. Therefore, an 8-week interval may be optimal for some people ages 12 years and older, especially for males ages 12--39 years," the CDC said.

Well since we're still learning about this vaccine, and we have no data for children under 12, we definitely should go forward with plans to vaccinate all children between two to five, who have no risk from covid whatsoever.

Don't be too upset, though. It's not personal.

The CDC just makes it a habit of withholding all important data from you.

The CDC has been withholding large portions of COVID-19 data from the public.

The New York Times reports that the CDC has published only "a small sample of the data" because it fears the public would not properly understand the data, that the public is too dumb.

"The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective," the Times reports.

In other words, if there's proof that the vaccines against COVID are less effective than promised -- as each triple-vaxxed COVID positive individual proves -- you don't deserve to know about it. So don't ask.

Among the hidden data points are the hospitalization rates broken down by age and vaccination status, in addition to the effectiveness of booster shots. Just the important stuff.

Two weeks ago, the CDC published the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65. Yet that information did not include tests among adults ages 18 to 49, the group least likely to benefit from booster shots because the first two doses left them well-protected.

When Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokeswoman, says the public would "misinterpret" this data, she means the public would see how the CDC is lying to them. That cannot happen.

Say -- withholding data about the efficacy of boosters among young adults...? Would that include young males, the same group at elevated risk for myocarditis...?

I sure hope the CDC wasn't hiding data that showed that the vaccine wasn't doing very much to protect young men from covid, at the same time it was also withholding data showing that the vaccines were increasing the risk of myocarditis in young men.

But I'm sure they wouldn't have done that. I'm sure they wouldn't have withheld data which would have otherwise allowed people at very low risk for serious covid harm to make rational, informed choices about their own health, just for purposes of supporting a politically-decided vaccinations-at-any-cost propaganda mission.

Right?

67 While absolute risk remains small, the relative risk for myocarditis is higher for males ages 12-39 years, and this risk might be reduced by extending the interval between the first and second dose," the agency said.

Is this supposed to be reassuring?
Posted by: Jordan61

Shut up and take your Science Pills, peon.

I'm pro-vax but I'm now wavering some. And I am more committed than ever against vax mandates, and the government, or corporations, telling citizens what they must inject into their bodies.

201 >>>It is, just like with every single other government agency and major institution. But such an inquiry will never happen and if does, the malefactors will just lie.
Posted by: Joe Mannix (Not a cop!)

Yup. It's liars all the way down.

But we're supposed to believe, and we're Russian Traitors if we don't.

This is the snakeoil the neocons and GOPe types (like Andrew McCarthy) continue selling: Trust the institutions that do nothing but lie to you, because we have jobs in them, and our lies are Good For You.

They've been selling Nobel Lies for so long, it never occurs to them to try selling a Nobel Truth.

Below, Sagar and Krystal say something crazy-naive about the CDC's mission being to "inform the public," not lie to it.

In fact, the CDC's mission is entirely about lying to the public.

I've told this story so many times you're probably sick of reading it. During the ebola outbreak, Obama, the International Cosmopolitan, decided he would not ban travel to the West African countries where ebola was breaking out.

That would be privileging American lives over African ones, which is not something an American President should do.

Therefore, Tom Frieden, then the head of the CDC, was sent out to Reassure the Public that The Science (TM) supported this policy. Remember, at that time, this was a political hot potato, because people wanted the borders closed until the outbreak was over.

To support the president's political choice, Frieden straight-up lied in an interview with CNN's Sanjay Gupta, claiming that ebola could not be spread by a sneeze, because ebola was not "airborne transmissible."

Gupta probed him on this, trying to get him to change his story, because he knew Frieden was misrepresenting the medical facts, but Frieden clung to his politicized lie.

Ebola is not, in fact, airborne transmissible, but that is a doubletalk distraction, because a sneeze is by definition not an example of airborne transmission, but an example of direct contact, and yes, ebola is very much transmissible by direct contact, as by a sneeze. (I think one of the spread in the US was through a sneeze.)

But Frieden lied because... oh, what excuse would he give? What would Francis Collins or Fauci or Rachel Walenski say...? Because he didn't want to "confuse the public" with "scientific details that would mislead them," so he offered a "simplified version of the truth" that would "steer them to the right conclusion."

Or, in starker terms: He lied about the facts in order to force the public to accept a conclusion that he and his political team had decided for political reasons, not scientific ones, and he omitted any details which would tip the public to the fact that these questions were in fact highly debatable and that this debate was largely one of covert political choice, not one of open scientific determination.

So, the real reason? He and Obama wanted to keep the border open and thought that a few cases of ebola spreadin in the US were an "acceptable risk," but didn't want to have to make that case in the public, so they just lied and claimed that ebola could not be spread by a sneeze, because it's not "airborne transmissible."

The CDC is all about pretending there is absolutely No Doubt about their conclusions, and No Possible Debate about their recommendations, to avoid the public having a chance to debate things the public should be debating.

The CDC exists as an expressly anti-democratic institution -- it exists to not only be apart from democracy, but to actively thwart it.

With lies, with subterfuge, and with smears against anyone who dares question what a bunch of penny-ante government bureaucrats who could not keep a job as a mid-level lab assistant have decided what "The Science (TM)" should be.

Now, I don't think there's anywhere where it's written down in the CDC protocols that you're supposed to lie to the public, or that Public Lying is the major part of "Public Science." You don't commit that sort of thing to writing. Writings can be subpeonaed.

But I would very much like Congress to put these bastards under oath, from Frieden to Collins to Fauci to Walenski, and make them answer under oath whether it is part of the secret, verbal culture of the CDC that the most effective way to lead the public during an oubreak is just to lie, lie, lie to them until they do what you fucking tell them to do.

Because that is what the CDC is all about. It's obviously what they're all about.

I just want them to be forced to admit it, or to go to jail for perjuring themselves in front of Congress.

A further thought:

I don't agree with the Vulgar Marxism of the left. "Vulgar Marxism" is an epithet applied to Marxist/leftist thinking that attempts to explain behavior in the capitalist west in the crudest way possible: "Oh, of course that happened, someone's just making money from that."

No matter how far-fetched it might be that someone was doing X for money might be. Thus, the adjective "Vulgar" in the phrase. The thinking is vulgar, crude, unrefined. Stupid.

But Russel Brand did make a Vulgar Marxist point I said "Hmmmm" to:

His point was that the west, which pays for vaccines, is pretty much all vaxed up, as far as adults go. The market is saturated. The only unvaccinated adults are those who can't be vaccinated or won't be vaccinated.

The only adults yet unvaccinated are in the third world, who are charity cases, to whom vaccines must be donated for zero cost, or else sold for just above cost.

But you know who you can get vaccinated, still, and get paid money for, at full costs, no discounts?

Kids. Kids in the wealthy west.

So thus the push to vaccinate not just kids, but kids as young as two years old.

Five years ago, hell, two years ago, I would have said, "No way, your pinko paranoia is getting the best of you."

But now...?

posted by Ace at 02:31 PM

| Access Comments