The Atlantic Admits That the 100% Safe Covid Vaccine Killed Children (But Finds Room to Attack Vaccine Skeptics Anyway)

Steve Jobs' Widow's Vanity Magazine The Atlantic takes a "pox on both their houses" position on the covid vaccines: The "health authorities" and their I-Believe-In-Science allies are criticized for denying the undeniable, that the covid vaccines did cause myocarditis and death in children, particularly young boys.

But the article of course also criticizes those who correctly and honestly pointed out that the vaccine was dangerous for children, particularly young boys, because... well, because they're On the Other Side and it's very gauche of them to be right about The Science.

David Strom excerpted this yesterday.

On the Friday after Thanksgiving, Vinay Prasad, the FDA's top vaccine regulator, made a claim that shocked the public-health establishment. "For the first time," he wrote in a leaked email to his staff, "the US FDA will acknowledge that COVID-19 vaccines have killed American children." The agency had supposedly identified at least 10 children who died from getting COVID shots.

...

To say the email was poorly received by vaccine experts and physicians would be an understatement. Prasad's claim provoked a rapid series of rebuttals. A response from 12 former FDA commissioners, published in The New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday, called Prasad's memo "a threat to evidence-based vaccine policy and public health security." All of the potential vaccine-related deaths reported to the government, presumably including those to which Prasad referred, had already been reviewed by the agency's staff, the former commissioners wrote, and "different conclusions" had been reached. Elsewhere, doctors and scientists declared that absolutely no evidence links COVID-19 vaccines to death in children; and that in order to suggest otherwise, Prasad and his colleagues had engaged in an "evidence-manufacturing mission," a "dumpster dive" for shoddy data, or--worse--a campaign of lying.

...there's something troubling--and telling--in the fact that his memo has provoked people to deny even the possibility of COVID-vaccine-related deaths. The idea that mRNA-based shots have, tragically, killed a very small number of children is not far-fetched. It also doesn't imply a catastrophic threat to public health, given that tens of millions of doses of these vaccines have safely been given out to young people. From the start of the coronavirus pandemic, lack of nuance has been a problem with public-health messaging--one that anti-vaccine advocates have made use of to great effect. Now, in a moment when public health in America is under existential threat, this insistence that no evidence exists for vaccine-related deaths risks adding to the crisis.

But children did not need the "vaccines," meaning that the risks of mandating it to them -- and the deaths that then occurred -- were absolutely unnecessary.

No public-health authorities deny that COVID shots can have some ill effects. Adverse reactions are possible with all medical interventions. The mRNA-based vaccines produced by Pfizer and Moderna, in particular, are known to cause myocarditis--inflammation of the heart--on rare occasions, especially in teenage boys and young men. The form of myocarditis that occurs after vaccination is typically far less severe than the one caused by viruses; for unclear reasons, mRNA-related cases have largely disappeared in recent years. But this condition can be deadly, and considering the hundreds of millions of mRNA doses that have been administered to Americans, even extraordinarily unlikely outcomes may well be inevitable.

He doesn't want to lose his Leftwing Pinhead Membership Card, so he now pivots to attacking those who correctly said that children do not need the vaccine and in fact seem to be harmed by it:

The possibility--perhaps the likelihood--that a handful of vaccine-related deaths occurred and were downplayed by medical authorities does not undermine the fact that COVID vaccination, on the whole, has prevented death on a massive scale. Nor does it justify sweeping changes to vaccine regulations. Rather, it suggests the need for some targeted reforms, such as improvements to the country's vaccine-adverse-event reporting system--and also tells us that a strategy of minimizing tragic outcomes, however rare, may not be the best way to protect a vital instrument of public health.

Strom points out that this joker believes that RFKJr. is an "existential threat" to public health. Not the people who mandated that children take a vaccine that they did not need and which actually murdered a couple dozen of them, but the guy saying "Let's review the necessity and efficacy and safety of vaccines."

Strom mentions that once upon a time, he assumed the best of public health officials. Not any longer, of course.

I've written about this, but I'll mention it again: My own realization that public health officials consider it a badge of honor to blatantly lie to the pubic about public health -- to convince the uneducated to do what the educated want them to do, through any means necessary, including public disinformation campaigns -- came when I saw CNN's health correspondent Sanjay Gupta interview Obama's head of the CDC during the ebola outbreak.

During that outbreak, "The experts" decided to downplay the risk of the disease, instead of being hyper-alarmist. They did so because Obama had decided that the First Black President must never impose a temporary travel ban to any African country, even one in the midst of an ebola outbreak. So the marching orders went out to public health officials to convince the Uneducated Bigots of America that ebola was no big deal, really, You Racists.

Obama's CDC director claimed that ebola wasn't a danger for spreading because it could not be spread by "airborne transmission" but only by "direct contact." He said this specifically to allay fears of people on planes, trains, and buses that they could catch ebola from a fellow passenger.

Gupta asked, "So there's no risk if someone with ebola sneezes on another passenger? "

Obama's lying CDC directed reiterated that "ebola cannot be spread by airborne transmission," asserting that this statement answered the question.

But it didn't. Because we later learned that "airborne transmission" refers to disease-carrying bodies remaining in the air for hours and hours after the infected person has left the room. It refers to particles so light that they just "bounce" up and down in the air and don't sink to the ground for days.

But a sneeze is not considered "airborne transmission," even though it sounds like it should be, and even though Obama's CDC director insinuated that a sneeze would be a case of airborne transmission and ebola could not be spread by airborne transmission.

No, Gupta later told viewers in an update: A sneeze is considered direct contact with the infected person -- the spittle passes directly from them to anyone hit by the spray -- so yes, ebola is easily spread by a sneeze. And Obama's CDC director knew this, but he wanted to lie to the public, per Obama's wish to downplay the outbreak, so he told the world that ebola could not be passed via a sneeze.

It was a straight up lie. But he told it because the "experts" had decided that the value of keeping travel open to Africa outweighed Racist Americans' bigoted ideas about ebola being a killer disease that could literally liquify your internal organs, so "The Science" was changed to convince people of the political decision the "experts" had decided was best for them.

Earlier this year I started watching House, MD. The main character is an arrogant sociopath who routinely lies to patients about the risks or benefits of a course of treatment. He justifies this by noting that he went to medical school whereas most patients did not, and so he knows the right course of action and they simply don't. When told that this violates the law of informed consent, he snaps back that informed consent is a lie because informed consent is impossible for non-experts. So might as well lie to them or trick them into doing "the right thing," at least according to "the experts."

I mention that, of course, because it's not just a trait given to a fictional character on a TV show. There are a lot of people in medicine and particularly in the highly political field of government "public health" who share House's view on the impossibility of true informed consent and therefore the justification for simply lying to people to get them to do the "right" thing.

If you meet with a doctor, you're the client.

But you are not the client of "public health officials." The government, specifically the President or the state governor, is their client.

That's the person they are working for. You are just the rubes they're hustling to sell a product to.

posted by Ace at 03:27 PM

| Access Comments