Hey, don’t believe me, believe the NY Times
The New York Times Makes A Stunning Admission About CDC Data On Vaccines
The New York Times made an eye-popping admission on Sunday regarding data collected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Covid-19 vaccines.
In an article titled, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects,” reporter Apoorva Mandavilli writes: “For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public.”
Mandavilli, who covers science and global health for the Times, reported that the agency has published “only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected” since the pandemic began, including data on booster efficacy for 18 – 49 year-olds, a tremendous chunk of the U.S. population.
You just know that, if the data supported the CDC’s fearmongering and citizen control agenda they’d be publishing it out the wazoo. Here’s one of the best parts
"The C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year … The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public … because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective."https://t.co/hecPyHmWQn
— Scott Morefield (@SKMorefield) February 20, 2022
Well, if the data might be misinterpreted, why would that be? And, let’s be honest, they are really mostly only effective in keeping people from getting really sick from Wuhan flu, when they were originally said to keep people from getting it at all. And the article goes on to note that so many have to get their data from nations like Israel, because they aren’t getting it from the CDC. And, you know what they’ve found out?
Got a COVID Booster? You Probably Won’t Need Another for a Long Time
As people across the world grapple with the prospect of living with the coronavirus for the foreseeable future, one question looms large: How soon before they need yet another shot?
Not for many months, and perhaps not for years, according to a flurry of new studies.
Three doses of a COVID vaccine — or even just two — are enough to protect most people from serious illness and death for a long time, the studies suggest. (snip)
The omicron variant can dodge antibodies — immune molecules that prevent the virus from infecting cells — produced after two doses of a COVID vaccine. But a third shot of the mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech or by Moderna prompts the body to make a much wider variety of antibodies, which would be difficult for any variant of the virus to evade, according to the most recent study.
The diverse repertoire of antibodies produced should be able to protect people from new variants, even those that differ significantly from the original version of the virus, the study suggests.
Well, that sounds like a good deal.
A big question now is “will members of the House and Senate ask pointed questions to CDC director Rochelle Walensky over the CDC hiding data from the public?”
#LetsGoBrandon
#FuckJoeBiden
Bwaha! Lolgf
Thank goodness for the New York Times investigation!
Blind squirrels and broken clocks.
Not exactly a reason to praise them…but I suppose you have to take your tiny victories where you can.
Washington Post just posted an article written by three scientists. Two of which QUIT the FDA over Booster shots.
Natural immunity to covid is powerful. Policymakers seem afraid to say so.
People making decisions about their health deserve honesty from their leaders. This was in Sept 2021.
Natural Immunity To COVID Works! Washington Post Admits Writing in the Washington Post, three highly credentialed experts expressed the belief that individuals who had experienced COVID infections should not be required to take booster shots.
The Freakin W H O says: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/21/who-repeats…
Sep 21, 2021 · The WHO strongly opposes the widespread rollout of booster shots, asking that wealthier nations instead give extra doses to countries with minimal vaccination rates.
The point is simple. The WAPO sites studied that included up to 30 million people in which those who had contracted covid prior to vaccinations had more immunity that those that had contracted it with vaccinations. Additionaly you were more likely to NOT catch the virus with natural immunity as opposed to vaccines.
Additionally, Bill Gates was asked about this and his response was: Perhaps we will do better NEXT TIME!!!! He admitted that natural immunity was better than vaccine immunity. I bring Gates up because he has an army of doctors on his payroll that have been advising him all through this pandemic as he funds research and charities around this sort of thing because he has said for over a decade now that his greatest fear is a pandemic.
But for Dowd and his buddy hairy. Everyone concluded that the maximum benefit of preventing Covid infection was attained by having had the vaccine and CONTRACTING COVID. You were on the order of 5 percent more likely NOT to catch covid with both but still standing at 88 percent with Natural immunity as opposed to in the 70 percent range with Pfizer, Moderna and even less with J&J and most of the others around the world.
There is no question that having had Covid + vaccination gives one the best protection against subsequent infections and severe symptoms. But are there any disadvantages from CONTRACTING COVID when compared to vaccination against Covid?
1.You are more likely to die if you are not vaccinated.
2.Some people who contract and recover from Covid develop not only “long”-Covid but scientists are seeing chronic decreases in lung, heart, liver and kidney function.
There are now ongoing studies that are looking at your genetics and comparing that to death rates.
What started this was fat, ugly(ugly in the sense of having comorbidities) unhealthy, and unvaccinated people survived covid while healthy people, unvaccinated AND vaccinated were dying.
For the longest the narrative was well they were unvaccinated so they died and if they were vaccinated then it was because they had comorbidities.
From NIH Thursday, September 24, 2020
Scientists discover genetic and immunologic underpinnings of some cases of severe COVID-19
NIH.gov
Blog Home
Director’s Album
More Genetic Clues to COVID-19 Susceptibility and Severity
Posted on July 20th, 2021 by Dr. Francis Collins
Gene that doubles risk of serious COVID-19 found in Poland …
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/polish-scientists-find-gene…
13/01/2022 · The researchers from the Medical University of Bialystok found that the gene was the fourth most important factor determining how seriously a person suffers from COVID-19,
Scientists Find Dangerous Gene That Doubles Risk Of Covid …
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/scientists-discover-dangerous…
04/11/2021 · Scientists Find Dangerous Gene That Doubles Risk Of Covid Death 60% of South Asians carry the gene with greater risk, and 15% of those with European ancestry.
Japan’s low COVID-19 death rate may be due to genetics …
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/11/national/riken-research-covid-19
11/12/2021 · Many scientists have speculated there may be an X-factor when it comes to the mysteriously low COVID-19 infection and death rates in Japan and neighboring China
The studies go on and on.
Again I have often heard the axiom. People die of covid who did not have the vaccine and their death is blamed on not having had the vaccine. How do we really know? There is no way to know that if this person had a vaccine they would have survived. The same is true of people who died of covid while having had the vaccine. Why?
Co-Morbidities for sure but many researchers around the globe and just not paid shills by Big Pharma are finding other things in our genes that may unlock clues as to why much of what has transpired for 2 years remained a confusing mystery to most of us.
The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public … because they might be correctly interpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.”
There, that’s more accurate.
And how do we know that getting vaccinated makes your symptoms less severe if you then go on and get infected? Impossible to know that on an individual level, because you can’t run that experiment both ways.
The only way to know that would be through statistical data on the relative amount of follow up medical care that is given to the vaccinated and unvaccinated, accounting for co-morbidities and age.
And the relative numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated that actually end up needing any medical care after getting infected.
Our esteemed host wrote:
Some will deny that, of course, but when the
BrandonBiden Administration has been trying everything it could, including vaccine mandates, to get more people vaccinated, there is no reason for the CDC not to have released more data if that information supported the ’cause’. Actually, our host left out a critical part of the third paragraph from the Times:Emphasis mine.
Now, what would be the purpose of doing this? A small but nevertheless significant percentage of people who take the vaccines have adverse reactions; if the 18-49 year old group are “least likely to benefit from the extra shots,” then the risk-benefit analysis changes. The government, in urging boosters yet keeping that information from the public is exposing a greater number of people to the risk of adverse reactions for little if any positive benefit.
Why do this? It’s simple: to admit that there’s little additional; benefit concomitantly publicizes the part that the government desperately wants to keep hidden, that the vaccines are not entirely risk-free.
All vaccines have adverse reactions; which are rarely serious. No reasonable person would say that vaccines (or any medicine) is entirely risk-free. The US has administered 550,000,000 doses of Covid vaccine. The notion that this is an admission that the adverse reactions were worse than reported is conjecture.
The CDC should have released the 18-49 yr data if it was deemed reliable. Their concern that the right-wing noise machine would intentionally misinterpret the information, while realistic, is not reason enough to withhold reliable, valuable data. In any event, Dr Walensky has likely lost any ability to lead the agency.
The bigger concern is that right-wing noise machine efforts would dissuade 18-49 yr olds with co-morbitities, or those 50 and older from receiving the useful booster shot. This would cost lives.
VAERS says you lie.
You are misinterpreting the VAERS data, you old liar you.
Who would have thought that cons would deliberately misinterpret data to push their political agenda? The CDC, that’s who!
No one gets to misinterpret the incomplete VAERS data except Rimjob.
#LetsGoBrandon
#BelieveTheLie
Bwaha! Lolgf
Can you explain the VAERS database for those that don’t know?
I’m getting my popcorn.
dOwd’s Partisan BS: “The bigger concern is that right-wing noise machine efforts would dissuade 18-49 yr olds with co-morbitities, or those 50 and older from receiving the useful booster shot. This would cost lives.”
No, wrong as usual. The bigger concern is that left wing propaganda and misinformation machine has actually caused lives, thousands of lives, none of which have any recourse as the left wing legal warfare unit has given blanket protection to Big Pharma regardless of the lives they take or the medical problems they cause. Since we have no way of knowing the actual extent of the lives lost or the damage done in the name of false “science”, thanks to the censorship, cover-ups and manipulation of the numbers which since even before the fake election have become a cornerstone of what little the illegal leftist government and their comrades inhabiting the Deep State allow the public to know we can only guess at how many people between 18-49 have been and will be killed and maimed. We put the number in the millions worldwide and at least a million domestically. Hell, if the CDC et al can make up numbers so can we.
And nobody, not even your imaginative “right wing noise machine” which like all those white supremacists hiding under your bead don’t exist in the real world only in the imagination of people who think anyone who disagrees is a non-person, want to “dissuade” people 50 or older from doing anything. You want to force them to get booster shots ad Infinium. We want them to have a choice based on their own discretion. Why is personal choice and personal freedom such a demon to you leftists?
Let’s go Brandon, thousands to kill in Ukraine just waiting to be droned.
You’re too ignorant to even argue.
The distinguished Mr Dowd quoted:
The problem with that statement is that the government has been taking action on whatever data it has, and now we are finding out that some of that earlier data may be contradicted by what they have gathered but not released.
Mr Dowd agreed with me:
The problem arises that the boosters may well be of little or no benefit to the 18-to-49-year age bracket, and if they are of little benefit, then the government, which has been pushing the boosters, has been pushing people to take a risk for little or no benefit.
This is the problem with the data not being ready for prime time, not being certain that it has been accurate and actionable: the government has been issuing all sorts of decrees and mandates and the like based not on data, but on what someone thinks might be the case. This whole panicdemic has been shooting from the hip, because they don’t actually know what has been happening, what is going on.
The government started pushing the booster shots last August, and several scientists said that the action was very premature:
By November, that was down to six months, yet now, what the scientists warned about, the data not being compelling, is coming out. And any data from November on are three months or less old.
Let’s put the matter more clearly: if the CDC are concealing data, in a fashion which is meant to encourage booster shots in a population which do not need them, the government is lying to us!
The
BrandonBiden Administration have been ‘preparing’ us for redefining “fully vaccinated” as including the booster shot, though that hasn’t happened yet. But if the booster provides little additional benefit for 18 to 49 year olds, then the case for such redefinition fails.The New York Times have just done the most radical thing possible: they have just said, inter alia, that the conspiracy theorists have been right.
I guess that the science has not been followed.
Withholding data-the government’s version of the “scientific method” in action…..