|
New Dawn 191 (Mar-Apr 2022)
from
NewDawnMagazine
Website
published in early 2022, is a reminder of how the "science" of the COVID-19 'pandemic' was relentlessly politicized which in turn subjected it to constant mutations to conform to official narratives...
We "trust" the science that enables aviation because, in the overwhelming majority of cases, planes do not fall out of the sky.
Theories of aerodynamics were tested and demonstrated in repeated experiments until they could be proven, as much as anything can be "proven."
Governments and health authorities marketed the jab as a necessary intervention to reduce hospitalizations, initially implying that being injected would end the 'pandemic'.
Another answer to the title is that,
The definition of "vaccine" has been changed by health authorities, not merely to update the latest technologies but to change the meaning of the effect of vaccination and immunization.
Standard procedures for vaccine development, particularly the ten-year timeframe, have been abandoned...!
A small number of top-level, pro-injection scientists ignored by media,
Nationalistic propaganda has selectively demonized certain
injectable products and favored others, even though the alleged
vaccines are similar in terms of development timeframes and efficacy
rates.
With no large-scale
clinical trials, people were told that they could "mix and match"
the injectable products (e.g., an AstraZeneca first dose, a Moderna
second, a Johnson and Johnson third. This is called "heterologous
vaccination").
An October 2020 survey
found that attitudes toward proposed vaccination varied
significantly from country to country.
Those who did had good reason.
Most of them were over-65, i.e., in the most COVID-vulnerable category and had or had lived with someone with underlying health conditions.
Four in ten respondents of all ages were split between,
Lumping "definitely" with "wait and see" is a strange way to tabulate poll data, but there it is.
The pollsters found that 9% of respondents would get the jab only if coerced (i.e., in order to continue their education or employment).
15% said that they would never get injected. Unlike the "as soon as possible" group, the "never" cohort tended to be Republican (41% to 25) and most had no higher education (53% to 38).
But other polls show that vaccine hesitancy is
high among PhDs, who also tend to be Democrat voters.
Hesitancy across all groups decreased from a quarter to 16%.
It is also worth noting that for millions of people in our "capitalist" order, a missed workday can mean no pay or even the sack.
The survey authors found a U-shaped curve...
The least and most educated alike were the most injection-hesitant:
Apparently, this revelation - that those in the "hesitant" cohort included so many people with PhDs - was too embarrassing for the PLoS journal to publish because it goes against the "trust the science" narrative.
This information appears in the pre-print, but not in the final publication.
It is not disputed or analyzed but simply removed...
People don't "trust the science" of the alleged vaccine because it is politicized.
In July 2020, 15% of Americans said that an endorsement of the injection by US President Donald Trump would encourage them to take it.
However, more than 30% said that Trump's endorsement would put them off.
At the start of the 'pandemic' in March 2020, Dr Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to Presidents Trump and Biden, and head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, told 60 Minutes,
Three months later, after mask-wearing policies had been changed, Fauci told TheStreet that his flip-flop occurred because,
Fauci claimed he wanted
to ensure health care workers received masks as a priority.
Democrat-majority cities and states, including San Francisco and New York, didn't wait for lockdown mandates.
Yet, as the Democratic National Committee (which runs the Party) attacked Trump for minimizing the seriousness of the virus, they also told their voters, poll workers, and volunteers to go to booths and elect left representatives; i.e., ignore the CDC advice and stand maskless close to elderly and ethnic minority voters and volunteers (i.e., the most vulnerable).
Biden tweeted on 15 March:
Another reason people don't "trust the science" is that media are blatantly partisan.
For instance, in March 2020, Twitter Safety announced that it would censor misinformation concerning the 'pandemic'.
For instance, Biden's lowering of public confidence in the jab and his violation of CDC guidelines by insisting people vote were not removed by Twitter:
Science doesn't care if the vaccine is American, British, Chinese, or Russian. Yet, the COVID-19 jabs have been demonized and discredited or promoted and canonized, according to their country of origin.
The British Army's psychological warfare unit, the 77th Brigade, has been targeting injection skeptics as 'possible enemies of the state linked to Russia'...
To pre-empt Russia's success in producing the first COVID-19 jab, Western intelligence agencies claimed that Putin stole research from Western pharmaceutical companies.
But if public health was the priority, not nationalistic point-scoring,
Nations rushed their purported vaccines to win the global battle of ideas and enjoy international prestige.
Russia happened to get their first with Gamaleya's Sputnik-V. The American journal Nature quoted vaccinologists as denouncing the Russian jab as "reckless."
The same criticism was applied neither to American companies nor to the UK and Sweden, which quickly rolled out their joint AstraZeneca jab under the same reckless circumstances.
AstraZeneca used trial "volunteers" in poor countries like Brazil, one of whom died. Britain outsourced some of its vaccine production to its former colony, India's Serum Institute.
In November 2020, alleged links between the Institute and jab-induced neurological damage were reported.
The Indian-produced version of the jab did not receive approval from the European Union's Medicines Agency, meaning that the estimated five million Brits injected with the India-produced version of the AstraZeneca jab had to abide by EU quarantine rules when holidaying.
Again, either a "vaccine"
works or it doesn't...!
Just as the moon landing
in the 1960s was America's way of getting one up on the USSR in the
court of global technological public opinion, the race to beat COVID
with injections was largely influenced by prestige propaganda.
The leading EU nations - Germany, France, Italy, and others - cited health concerns, particularly blood clots, as the reason for banning AstraZeneca's (AZ) jab.
Despite the jab being co-produced by a Swedish (i.e., EU) company, it is likely that the real reason for the ban was to punish the UK for its recent Brexit (leaving the Union).
It is also possible that because BioNTech is a German company and Germany is the leading economy in the EU, the member states wanted to privilege the US-German Pfizer/BioNTech jab.
We also don't know what kind of lobbying against AZ occurred behind the scenes by rival companies like Pfizer.
evolving definition of "vaccination" in the space of a few years. These changing definitions on the CDC website were tracked by accessing the 'Wayback Machine', a digital archive of websites
(Source:
twitter.com/repthomasmassie/status/1435606845926871041)
In a vaccine trial, some questions include the dose-to-antibody stimulation ratio according to age, comorbidities, and pregnancy.
These measures went out the window with the COVID jabs.
Both peer-reviewed journals and mainstream media boasted that the biggest vaccine candidates - Pfizer, AZ, Gamaleya, etc. - were safe and effective.
Even though the EU and US banned AZ over blood clots, the academic literature continued to vouch for the product's safety.
So:
The Lancet published an extraordinary paper on vaccine efficacy, which the mainstream media tried to discredit with their self-appointed "fact-checkers."
The study pointed out
that when absolute risk reduction measures are added to the data of
the major vaccine candidates, "efficacy" drops from the 70-90
percentiles claimed by other peer-reviewers down to literally point
one or just above one%, depending on the "vaccine."
But once it became clear that the alleged vaccines would not actually beat the virus (as vaccines are supposed to do), the "science" changed.
The "science" of who or what constitutes "vaccinated" also changed...
Because politicians and health officials like Fauci were not clear from the outset that the public would likely need to be put on a vaccine schedule (i.e., to have more than one dose), people assumed that a single shot would suffice.
It was then reported that
a course would be required.
For example, while the propaganda machine continues to claim that the Pfizer jab is "90% effective" (again, what does that even mean?), the credible pre-print literature now concedes that the Johnson and Johnson jab, for example, is three% (more consistent with findings in The Lancet's study noted above).
How could one be fully vaccinated with two Pfizers and a near-zero efficacy J&J?
All of this explains why we've gone from,
From this, we can conclude that,
Another reason that people don't "trust the science" is because most people have contracted or will contract COVID.
As most cases are either asymptomatic or mild and confer better immunity than the injections, the question remains for most people:
However, whatever they are, the jabs do seem to play an important role in reducing the risk of severe illness that requires ICU treatment.
Patients must therefore make informed choices with a personal risk-reward analysis.
Non-injection measures, such as vitamin D increase and monoclonal antibodies, might, depending on the patient, have the same or better results as the jabs.
We can't know because Big
Pharma and government has favored the blunt instrument of injection
over the gentler measures of vitamins and therapeutics.
For instance, the numbers presented in a recent peer-reviewed paper show a clear (though small) increase in early-pregnancy miscarriages in "vaccinated" women. But the paper's words conclude that there is no such increase.
Likewise, mainstream media lie about the risks of COVID to children.
In October 2021, the New York Times retracted its claim that 900,000 American children had been hospitalized with COVID, when the real number was (still an awfully high) 63,000.
Pfizer's media-buying power is such that in November 2021, NBC's senior medical correspondent, Dr John Torres, had a Freudian slip.
He said:
Err, did he mean COVID...?
Torres either lied or got the numbers preposterously wrong.
He went on to claim that,
People also don't "trust the science" because the Twitter police did not remove NBC's misinformation - that's because NBC is part of the Democrat-supporting mainstream media.
In reality, by January this year,
In the US, the number by December 2021 was 1,000:
It is rare but not unheard of that people need to follow a month or two-month-long vaccine schedule with two or even three injections, such as the hepatitis B vaccine. But four doses?
At the point where the "vaccine" is most efficacious (again, meaning what...?) Israel health officials privately warn that the body risks "immune system fatigue," where the immune system has been so shot with attenuated virus, spike protein and/or mRNA, that it is worn out.
Is this science or one
big, pre-scientific, profit-driven experiment using a desperate and
frightened public, coerced with mandates, as lab animals...?
|
