COVID Propaganda Persists, But So Does The Data
COVID Propaganda Persists, But So Does The Data
With COVID As With Everything Else, Follow The Data
The 2023-2024 flu season has officially begun, and the corporate media has officially launched its by now predictable fear tactics pushing…wait for it…vaccinations.
With the changing weather comes the start of the flu and cold season, and healthcare experts say it's just getting started and are urging people to take precautions.
The Centers for Disease Control predictions for this flu, cold and COVID-19 season show a possibility for an increase in hospitalizations similar to what the country saw with the "Tripledemic" of all three illnesses last year.
That’s right, winter is fast approaching so more people are going to get the sniffles, the sneezes, the aches, and the fevers typical of cold and flu season. This, of course, is dangerous and people must take the jab “precautions” to ensure Big Pharma can pay maximum bonuses to the C-suite at year’s end, "precautions” being, of course, more ineffective, dangerous, and deadly mRNA inoculations.
Equally predictable within the fear tactics are the random deviations from facts and this little thing called “the truth,” as Dr. Victor Test, a pulmonologist with Texas Tech Physicians, demonstrates:
The CDC has classified Texas as Level 2 for respiratory illness activity as of Oct. 19, which means COVID-19, RSV and flu are not running rampant.
However, Test encourages those in vulnerable demographics to get vaccinated before the illnesses become prevalent.
When it comes to COVID-19, Test said the new vaccines are different from the previous vaccines that were being administered early during the pandemic.
"Previous variations of the COVID-19 vaccinations were approved under emergency use application and even though there was extensive data on them, the current vaccination has had to go through the standard approval process," he said.
The current vaccination is an mRNA vaccine that teaches the body how to develop immunity to the virus, Test said. He said it has proven to be safe and effective against the newer strains.
These very nice-sounding assurances from the good doctor are, unfortunately, somewhere between exaggerated and simply false.
Taking the last bit first, whether the new but not improved COVID shot is “proven to be safe and effective,” the best that can be said of that is that such a claim is premature. The shot develops antibodies, but that is the extent of what Pfizer knows about the new formulation’s efficacy.
Pre-clinical data show that the updated COVID-19 vaccine generates improved neutralizing antibody responses against multiple circulating Omicron-related sublineages including XBB.1.5, BA.2.86 (Pirola), and EG.5.1 (Eris), which currently accounts for the largest portion of U.S. cases
“Pre-clinical” is a term of art within the FDA’s drug development process, whereby initial assessments of a candidate therapeutic’s toxicity is evaluated. Significantly, pre-clinical studies occur before the therapeutic is actually tested in people.
Before testing a drug in people, researchers must find out whether it has the potential to cause serious harm, also called toxicity. The two types of preclinical research are:
Are the new formluations “safe and effective”? Pre-clinical data does not let us reach that conclusion.
Moreover, Dr. Test was inaccuarate when he asserted that Pfizer’s mRNA inoculation had not gone through an EUA process, but rather through the more rigorous approval process. Pfizer’s own press release about the updated preparation indicates otherwise (emphasis mine).
Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the supplemental Biologics License Application (COMIRNATY 2023-2024 Formulation) for individuals 12 years and older and granted emergency use authorization for individuals 6 months through 11 years of age for the companies’ Omicron XBB.1.5-adapted monovalent COVID-19 vaccine. This season’s vaccine is indicated as a single dose for most individuals 5 years of age and older. Children under the age of 5 may be eligible to receive ad
ditional doses of this season’s vaccine if they have not already completed a three-dose series with previous formulations of a COVID-19 vaccine.
For at least some potential recipients, the inoculation most assuredly is being administered under an EUA.
Moreover, the testing rigor itself is open to debate (again, emphasis mine).
The approval of this season’s COVID-19 vaccine is based on the full body of previous clinical, non-clinical, and real-world evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and BioNTech. Further, the application included pre-clinical data showing this season’s vaccine substantially improved responses against multiple Omicron XBB-related sublineages, including XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, and XBB.2.3, compared to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine. Additionally, pre-clinical data demonstrate that serum antibodies induced by Omicron XBB.1.5-adapted monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, when compared to the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-adapted bivalent vaccine, effectively neutralize the recently emerged Omicron BA.2.86 (Pirola) and the globally dominant Omicron-related EG.5.1 (Eris) subvariant.
How much testing of the inoculation we cannot determine, but Pfizer’s own language indicates that the amount of actual testing on humans is at most minimal.
That is relevant because we know from the CDC’s own disclosures that safety monitoring of the mRNA inoculations was not done at all initially, and was done sloppily when compelled to undertake it.
That revelation came a year after it became apparent that the mRNA inoculations were far from the miracles they were initially touted to be, and were instead problematic bordering on toxic.
In light of the data and the revelations that have emerged since the inoculations were first released, it is remarkable—and disconcerting—that Pfizer has done only minimal testing for its latest rendition of the COVID inoculation. Rather, Pfizer is representing that it has rendered perfunctory testing, and the FDA has given that testing data a perfunctory review, after which the FDA agreed to allow the modified inoculation be administered.
Whether that makes the inoculation “safe and effective” or “toxic and deadly” is a choice I leave to you, the reader.
Yet even beyond the significant question of how “safe and effective” the mRNA inoculations truly are is the question of how much efficacy is truly needed. Despite all the fear porn generated in support of the Pandemic Panic Narrative, the data has never supported the many claims of severity for COVID as a public health crisis made by the corporate media.
Bear in mind that even in the earliest days of the “pandemic”, it was apparent that there was a significant disparity between what was being projected about the disease and the cases that were being recorded.
Even as lockdowns were being instituted across the United States, it was apparent that the recorded mortality from COVID was not matching the hyperventilating media accounts.
The data has not improved the narrative since those early days of the “pandemic” at all. The data has not improved on mortality, the data has not improved in virulence, the data has not improved on how and where the virus is actually spread.
A recent study appearing on JAMA Network Open has found that child care centers are not a likely transmission vector for the SARS-CoV-2 virus1.
These findings suggest that children in CCCs play a small role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission into their households and that current testing and exclusion recommendations for CCCs should be aligned with those for other respiratory viruses with similar morbidity and greater transmission to households.
Moreover, during the most recent COVID “wave” in the United States, hospitalizations peaked well below what had been recorded for any earlier wave.
Even at that, during the previous wave of COVID in the US, hospitalizations from influenza actually exceeded those from COVID.
In both waves, there was no concurrent increase in either influenza cases or Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), which effectively demolishes all notion of a “tripledemic” for respiratory viruses.
The reality has always been that there are seasonal outbreaks of respiratory viral infections, which are generally amalgamated under the rubric “Influenza Like Illnesses”—so called because they are almost symptomatically indistinguishable from each other. Quite literally, all viral respiratory infections are “the flu”.
The determination of the corporate media to perpetuate the Pandemic Panic Narrative is in many ways a marvel to behold. Yet in all the ways that matter, the Narrative is an appalling example of corporate media propaganda. It is, as the news story cited at the outset demonstrates, a compendium of hyperbole, half-truths, and pure hoakum.
Not only must we acknowledge that there never was a COVID-19 “pandemic”—that the outbreak of COVID-19 was never as severe as represented—we must also acknowledge that the inoculations devised to “prevent” COVID-19 have not only been an abysmal failure at stopping the spread of COVID-19, they have been themselves a source of multiple adverse event conditions, multiple life-threatening pathologies, as well as life-ending ones.
The data has made this clear from the outset. Despite this, the corporate media has ignored the data and continually hammered home a narrative that we cannot survive COVID unless we all get injected with the mRNA inoculations. As we move through fall and into winter, the corporate media is once again promoting the propaganda lies of the Pandemic Panic Narrative, seeking to sow fear and paranoia wherever possible.
Do not be misled by malicious narratives. Do not follow narratives at all—not even the narratives I use here to tie data sets together into a cohesive whole. Rather, follow the data. The data and only the data can describe reality. The narrative never describes more than a propaganda fantasy tale.
Facts, evidence, and data remain the best weapons against propaganda. With the annual cold and flu season ramping up, knowing the facts, evidence, and data surrounding COVID-19 is the best way to inoculate oneself from the Pandemic Panic Narrative.
Shope, Timothy R et al. “Incidence and Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in US Child Care Centers After COVID-19 Vaccines.” JAMA network open vol. 6,10 e2339355. 2 Oct. 2023, doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.39355
Highly recommended: Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy Newsletter, his blog "What is Covid-19?" (https://mikestone.substack.com/p/what-is-covid-190)
This blog by Mike Stone of ViroLIEgy Newsletter highlights three key points about the perception of COVID-19:
Loss of Taste and Smell:
The loss of smell and taste was initially presented as a defining symptom of COVID-19 in the media, leading people to believe it was unique to the disease.
However, these symptoms are not specific to COVID-19 and can be associated with various other conditions like allergies, the common cold, and more.
Media attention on these symptoms raised awareness but wrongly portrayed them as exclusive to COVID-19.
Ground-Glass Opacities:
Ground-glass opacities in chest x-rays were highlighted as a distinguishing feature of COVID-19.
Articles in the media suggested that this phenomenon was unique to COVID-19, instilling fear among the public.
Contrary to these claims, ground-glass opacities can be found in various conditions, including in healthy individuals and those with unrelated health issues.
Inappropriateness of PCR Tests for Diagnosis:
PCR tests were used to diagnose COVID-19 cases, but they were not designed for this purpose and can produce false positives.
The blog argues that COVID-19 diagnosis relies heavily on PCR tests, as there are no defining clinical or laboratory signs specific to the disease.
This use of PCR tests to define COVID-19 is criticized as fraudulent, as PCR tests can detect a wide range of genetic material and are not calibrated to identify a specific virus.
In summary, Mike Stone's blog questions the uniqueness of COVID-19 based on the loss of taste and smell, the presence of ground-glass opacities, and the reliance on PCR tests for diagnosis, suggesting that the disease may be a rebranding and repackaging of existing symptoms and conditions.
Remember folks; Trust the Science!
“Doctor” Fatty Arbuckle and his “patient” Buster Keaton join forces to remind us “Trust the Science.” Watch the hit music video TRUST THE SCIENCE RAG here: https://turfseer.substack.com/p/trust-the-science-rag
Okay, we seem to be on similar wavelengths lately, Peter, as I was given this video last night, so I watched it while waiting to give the few trick or treaters some candy...their mothers' were asking me questions about it after only a couple of minutes hearing it! Lol!
Anyway, the antidote for the snake venom is nicotine, which blocks the receptors and the virus dies!
Who knew??!! https://thedrardisshow.com/the-antidote