Dr. Vinay Prasad reports on the insanity. Here is is in a nutshell (this is my mini-summary):
Mount Sinai School of Medicine: Striving for a healthy weight is racist. NYT: Stop worrying about losing weight. This is part of the new American ethos: This bad thing that is happening to you is not your fault. In fact, nothing is your fault. And there is no need to work hard to achieve anything.
A federal court has issued a preliminary injunction against the state of California regarding California's new law that attempts to require doctors to adhere to COVID orthodoxy when they discuss treatment with their patients. Here is an excerpt from an article by FOX News:
A California judge issued a preliminary injunction against a state law that empowers the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who support opinions about COVID-19 that are not in line with the "consensus," according to reports.
The law, known as Assembly Bill 2098, was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. Under the law, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California could discipline physicians who "disseminate" information about COVID that is not in line with the "contemporary scientific consensus.""
Doctors said the law violates their First Amendment rights because it impedes their ability to communicate with their patients during treatment. . . .
Doctors also argue that "contemporary scientific consensus" is "undefined in the law and undefinable as a matter of logic."
I checked each of the following websites and you won't read a word about this important court ruling in the NYT, MSNBC, CNN, NPR or the Washington Post.
Our public health officials have earned our distrust. Vinay Prasad John Mandrola, writing at The Free Press:
We believe the feverish speculation that Covid-19 vaccines have led to increased sudden deaths is largely due to a trust problem with our public health leaders. And Americans have good reasons for their skepticism.For example, when the evidence emerged that myocarditis in young males was linked to the mRNA vaccines, the Biden administration denied it: We have not seen a signal and we’ve actually looked intentionally for the signal in the over 200 million doses we’ve given,” Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, said last April. This was despite the fact that it had been reported by researchers in Israel two months earlier.
When further studies confirmed a link to heart inflammation in younger males, instead of acknowledging that the evidence was concerning and requiring changes to vaccination recommendations to protect this group, officials pivoted. They asserted that vaccine-related myocarditis was not a big concern. Walensky described the myocarditis findings as “these mild, self-limited cases.” They also pushed the line that infection with Covid-19 itself—as is true of many viruses—can cause myocarditis, and that this was a far bigger danger.
We dispute both claims. The majority of young people with vaccine-related myocarditis are hospitalized, and then given long lists of activities to avoid. That is serious. And the evidence for the assertion that a Covid-19 infection is a big heart risk for young people is unconvincing.
Another front on which the government has not been forthcoming is the question of whether or not the vaccines actually prevent the spread of the disease. Last January, Walensky finally acknowledged what millions of people who had gotten the shots, then came down with Covid-19, could have told her—that the vaccines do not prevent people from getting or spreading the illness. Walensky herself contracted the virus for a second time last October, a month after she was boosted with the new bivalent vaccine she wants everyone to take.
People expect leaders to incorporate changing information into their messaging. For instance, since the vaccine does not prevent transmission, there was no longer a societal benefit in getting vaccinated. It should have become a personal health decision. But this message never came—just the opposite. Our health officials have been pushing boosters on everyone from kindergarten on up.
Even worse, many colleges, following CDC guidance, are mandating the new bivalent booster for all students. That means that these schools are violating the rights of bodily autonomy in young people, and increasing their risk of a vaccine side effect for no purpose.
Yet another unanswered question is why U.S. public health leaders, unlike many others around the world, do not consider natural immunity from contracting Covid-19 when making vaccination recommendations. Our officials simply ignore the growing evidence that a Covid infection confers resistance to reinfection as effectively, or even more so, than vaccines.
News this week about the FDA indicates that a change is coming to the current vaccination recommendations. Officials are expected to call for an annual dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, similar to the flu shot schedule. But there is no indication this guidance will be accompanied by the long-overdue studies looking into whether these vaccines provide sufficient protection to make any risks worthwhile.
Trust, once lost, is hard to regain. People feel that their medical leaders are withholding basic facts, denying reality, disregarding new information, or worse, causing them harm.
I have now seen enough to regret that that I had two COVID vaccines and a booster. I accepted these jabs because I trusted the public health authorities. I will not accept any more boosters. I am not alone. In the past six months, I have spoken to at least six friends who vote Democrat--all but one of them told me that they will not accept any more boosters and that they are concerned about risks associated with the vaccines.
I follow about ten well credentialed doctors online, including Dr. Aseem Malhotra, Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCoullough, who raise these concerns and many others. I've seen highly disturbing evidence that many smart doctors have been shut out of the conversation for three years (and they continue to be kept out of the conversation on legacy news outlets). We did not have a real or meaningful national conversation on the risks of these vaccines compared to the risks of COVID regarding many age groups. I saw the Great Barrington Declaration disparaged for mere political reasons, not medical. Our public health authorities told us that the vaccines were extremely safe, but now I'm not convinced of that.
Our public health authorities told us many things with the utmost confidence that have now been proven untrue. And although this is anecdotal, I've seen far too many videos of young healthy people collapsing, many of them dying. Over the past several years, I saw many numbers regarding the COVID risk of death that failed to break out the numbers of those who were obese, elderly and with comorbidities, failing to separate those from those of us who are healthy or young. I found out that many hospitals were conflating death with COVID with death from COVID, thereby inflating COVID death numbers.
Prior to vaccination, I was in very good health prior to getting vaccinated, very unlikely to die of COVID, even unvaccinated. I had an adverse reaction after my 2nd vaccination and it continues to affect me (inflamed toes). I know that I was also at some risk of harm from COVID, but as I write this, I believe we have been manipulated and lied to in many ways and that I have no meaningful way to be assured whether I was at more risk of harm from the vaccine than from the disease. Maybe someday we will know for sure.
The historically wretched track record of Big Pharma for lying to us in order to make $ multiplies my concern and frustration. Everyone will have their own opinion on this topic. I'm not suggesting to anyone else what they should do, but no more boosters for me.
--
Bonus Concerns: See Steve Kirsch' "Pfizer's secret guide for how to make a vaccine "safe and effective," including these three tips:
Here’s Pfizer’s secret playbook for how to make a “safe and effective” vaccine:--Require full liability protection
Contracts require that the government isn’t allowed to reveal any adverse safety information without Pfizer’s express consent
Get the US government to agree that there will not be any ICD10 codes for:
Death of a fully vaxxed person from COVID Death from the COVID vaccine Injury from the COVID vaccine
See also, this brand new article in the Australian Spectator: "Breaking the silence: do mRNA vaccine harms outweigh benefits?". An excerpt:
The evidence comes from the original double-blind, randomised control trials, that led to the approval of both Pfizer and Moderna by regulators worldwide. Malhotra explains, ‘In a reanalysis of the original trials with the Wuhan strain, eminent scientists essentially found you were more likely to suffer a serious adverse event – for example hospitalisation, disability, or a life-changing event – than you were to be hospitalised with Covid. That means, in essence, the mRNA vaccine should likely never, ever have been approved for anybody in the first place.’
The term "woke" refers to something real. It is important to get clear on what that thing is because we are in the throes of a powerful social movement that is working very hard to evade criticism by refusing to allow us to utter its name.
I have used "woke" for the past few years and I'm not giving up on this perfectly adequate term. There are other almost synonymous terms such as "social justice movement," but nothing quite captures Wokeness like Woke. I'm sticking with "woke," even though the Woke now accuse those who use this term of being insulting or bigoted. The "woke" will be insulted no matter how far down we go down the line of cascading euphemisms, however. This succession is sometimes referred to as a "euphemism treadmill." Another example of the euphemism treadmill can be found with the history of the word "retarded." At its core, "retarded" means slow thinking.
Many people have used the term "retarded" to describe a real life phenomenon that can be plainly seen in some people, unfortunately. Others have used it as an explicative and a pejorative, to hurt someone's feelings, often directing this insult at people who are not diagnosably slow in their ability to think. The fact that the word "retarded" can be used to both describe a real phenomenon and as an insult has resulted in the concoction of a comically long list of synonyms. Every time a new euphemism is invented, someone uses the newly created euphemism as an insult and then people go back to the blackboard to create a new synonym for slow thinking.
[More . . . ]