Posted by Curt on 25 February, 2022 at 12:53 pm. 6 comments already!


by Ace

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.

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 permit people at very low risk for serious covid harm from making rational choices about their own health, just for purposes of supporting a politically-decided vaccinations-at-any-cost propaganda mission.

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.
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.”

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x