CDC deletes statement that “mRNA and spike protein do not last long in the body”
web.archive.org
web.archive.org
Where were you when YT and FB were deleting content and accusing people of spreading lies because they contradicted CDC information?
Where were you to say that error is part of science and people with a different opinion may well be right?
Where were you when people from the "team science" mob defamed people with an unpopular opinion and destroyed their livelihoods when they were blackballed by their employers?
So yes - actually, it would be a small thing if the CDC corrected this message after the fact. But after everyone elevated the CDC as the only incontrovertible truth, the fall down is now just a little longer.
Don't confuse the matter with a random agenda.
If anything covid has shown that scientic "truths" are highly political.
What else will the conspiracy theorists be correct about?
A list of claims that are likely to see some kind of quiet semi-official recognition over the next five years:
1. COVID vaccines can injure and kill people.
2. They do so at a much higher rate than other vaccines have done in the past.
3. They can hurt fertility (see the recent crash in birth rates around the world).
4. For the vast majority they were not a good cost/benefit tradeoff.
5. Lockdowns were a failed policy and failed in the way lockdown opponents said they'd be at the start.
Some of these things are actually already being admitted in some quarters, if you look closely. Bill Gates, Mr Vaccine himself, recently admitted that COVID is a disease that "a disease mainly of the elderly, kind of like flu". Remember how people who said COVID is basically a bad flu were treated in 2020? How people who said the vaccines don't make sense for anyone except the elderly in 2021?
And w.r.t. injuries you're seeing the Nordic countries pull the vaccines for young people because the cost/benefit tradeoff is wrong. Moderna specifically got banned in parts of Europe for I think the under 30s, though if you look at the data used to justify that it should really have been for more like the under 50s and that data is certainly way too optimistic anyway due to under-reporting.
So far it's still dead silence on fertility. But birth rates are public. Anyone can draw graphs of them, align them seasonally and see the massive drop that starts 9 months after the vaccine rollout reached women of childbearing age.
Reality is most of the things labelled as conspiracy theories never were. They were people saying wait, these decisions make no rational sense, this is clearly mass hysteria and needs to be opposed. No conspiracy was invoked by the vast majority of the most vocal opponents I follow - just irrationality and institutional, culturally embedded ethical problems in the public health sector.
It is the same flawed argument used by people who think vaccines cause autism. "Oh my kid presented with autism when he was checked and was recently vaccinated, clearly it must be the cause!".
Correlation does not imply causation but causation always implies correlation, so when something fundamentally changes in a biological process as basic as reproduction and the only change of similar scale that matches temporally is an experimental new medical technology, you have to be willfully blind to not want an immediate, thorough and unconflicted investigation into that, because if it isn't the vaccines then that is one hell of a coincidence.
We aren't going to get such an investigation of course, because the public health community doesn't want to admit the possibility that their policies have negative side effects. So correlations will be the best we'll get.
Any phd student could do the research and publish it. And if they are right the research paper will become famous.
I think you just anthropomorphism big organizations and give them feeling and motivation. This is something conspirationnist like to do because it give the impression that a big group of people aware of the “secret” are knowingly against them
Absolutely wrong. If a medical student publishes such a paper, the following will happen:
1. Lancet & co. will reject publication. Peer review will be rejected because no one can be found to mess with the pharma industry.
2. student decides to upload it to an open access server. A link is posted to various interest groups.
3. FB, YT and Google will add a warning to each posting with this link that it's contradicts current CDC findings.
4. a fact checker will quickly write an article pointing out that experienced medical professionals do not see any correlation and the student should rather continue studying
5. the university will distance itself from the paper
6. Anthony Fauci & Christian Drosten will publish a joint statement calling the data insufficient and the analysis flawed. Then they will point out something about correlation and causality and simply deny a connection between birth rate and vaccinations
7. the medical student's career is over before it has even begun
P.S.: this has happened already several times. But fair enough - not everytime Fauci & Drosten had to intervene to keep people silenced.
Of course, you can deny that the phama industry in particular has a massive influence on publications like the Lancet. After all, such publications are essential for the approval of a drug. And with multi-billion dollar projects, managers will naturally refuse to have any influence on these publications. After all, it's all about science, and the pharmaceutical industry works exclusively for the benefit of mankind. That corresponding agencies exist, which flood the community with secondary papers to make a publication appear "credible" is of course just a nasty fairy tale.
The fact that scientists defame each other as conspiracy theorists - as happened with the lab-leak theory - is of course also only in the best interests of science.
But of course you are right - in science everyone works completely selflessly and honorably hand in hand for the exclusive good of mankind.
They don’t care if “science“ solve a problem or not they get paid either way.
This has led to the strange phenomenon in which all vaccine papers praise vaccines and say everyone should take them in the abstract, even if the data the paper reports shows clearly that there is a big problem. You just can't get published without a statement of ideological loyalty at the start.
Not true. Every flu season there are stories of young people in great shape– often athletes or in the military, who die due to the flu.
But I still remember Italy ER having lot of young people on ventilator!
It’s not because you look good on instagram that you are healthy…
Time to fight superstitions
Covid has BECOME a disease that primarily effects the elderly and immunocompromised. That was due to the huge vaccination efforts, and mutations in the disease.
Either way, I’m still wearing a mask when I go grocery shopping because I don’t want to be the one who gives covid to someone’s grandma, or someone doing chemotherapy.
Could you point to a reference on this? My understanding was COVID had always primarily affected the elderly and immunocompromised.
And no I'm not going to go do your reading for you. Vaccine effectiveness stats are easily googled. Reports on omicron's reduced severity are also easily googled.
Obese peoples have 5 to 6 times more chance to die from any respiratory disease than normal peoples. Also affecting effectiveness of any vaccine by halving it for obese peoples.
Covid-19 was primarily fat shaming, and also naturally targeting old peoples cause they are often weak at advanced age.
We actually have no idea how many people have become sick because of the vaccine because the medical system refuses to record vaccine injuries properly.
But, consider the US reporting system. Most reports come from medical providers not individuals. There are in fact about 175,000 COVID vaccine hospitalizations reported and the underreporting factor for VAERS and similar systems is usually measured at ~40x, so that would indeed be millions.
You might think that sounds obviously wrong but it doesn't to me. I don't have an unusually large social circle and I know people who went to the hospital for specialist checkups due to vaccine injuries, and I have one close friend who really should have gone but didn't (he had a heart attack but fortunately it wasn't fatal and he seems OK now). Millions of people with hospital-visit-worthy injuries is well within the bounds of what seems possible in a big country like the USA, let alone globally.
Scale that up to the US population and we’d expect around 7000 people claiming vaccine injury.
Note that there is money in the program in Canada, so pretty good incentive to apply.
To say that I’m skeptical of your 170,000 number (google shows no interesting results for “vaccine injury 170,000”) would be an understatement
Edit: https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp/cicp-data
There is a similar program in the US, and less than 10,000 claims have been made.
But even for the ones that are self-reported, so what? If someone is filling out complex forms with specific details of an injury that they think was caused by the vaccine, that is an important signal.
"I strongly suspect that data has been influenced by people’s political beliefs and isn’t an accurate representation of real events."
Absolutely correct! The vast majority of people have been told that doubting the vaccines is not allowed and will result in immediate and severe retaliation by ideological extremists, who are entirely committed to defending the public health bureaucracy. The historical underreporting factor was something like 40x but ideology and politics has surely hugely increased it now.
Obviously what you're claiming is the opposite - that for some reason huge numbers of people have been filling out bogus, untrue injury reports. It's a delusional belief. Go find evidence of that and then we'll talk.
Until then the evidence is on the side of massive under-reporting of a major tragedy by people who ideologically cannot or will not accept that The Science is made up of liars and incompetents.
> that for some reason huge numbers of people have been filling out bogus, untrue injury reports. It's a delusional belief. Go find evidence of that and then we'll talk.
Evidence like the 9k people in the US seeking financial compensation for vaccine injury? You’re comfortable with the idea that less than 5% of people impacted bothered to try to get money for their suffering? 170k injuries and 30k deaths would make for some biiig class action lawsuits but those don’t seem to be showing up anywhere
> “The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body.
> Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination.
The paper “Immune imprinting, breadth of variant recognition, and germinal center response in human SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination”, Röltgen et al. 2022, published in the journal Cell:
> “Prolonged detection of vaccine mRNA in LN GCs and spike antigen in LN GCs and blood following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination
> The biodistribution, quantity, and persistence of vaccine mRNA and spike antigen after vaccination and viral antigens after SARS-CoV-2 infection are incompletely understood but are likely to be major determinants of immune responses.
> We performed in situ hybridization with control and SARS-CoV-2 vaccine mRNA-specific RNAScope probes in the core needle biopsies of the ipsilateral axillary LNs that were collected 7–60 days after the second dose of mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccination and detected vaccine mRNA collected in the GCs of LNs on days 7, 16, and 37 postvaccination, with lower but still appreciable specific signal at day 60 (Figures 7A–7E).”
> https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)00076-9#sec...
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but I understand this as saying that the modified mRNA (using pseudouridine) does not degrade nearly as fast as normal mRNA, “Our cells break down mRNA [...] within a few days” vs. 60 days or more.
Now, this is not my area of expertise and I can’t say whether that’s important or not.
Arguably this is incorrect, although maybe poetic license applies: "Our cells break down mRNA from these vaccines..." This is incorrect because the mRNA hijacks the cell's machinery to produce spike so no, this is incorrect; on the other hand, the immune response... mediated by other cells... does indeed break down the cells which are emitting Spike, at least eventually, or at least that's the plan.
Right. Now compare it to the page as it looks today to see that they deleted that section.
In any event, none of this even matters - the mRNA and spike proteins are completely innocuous on their own and this language existed just to assuage unfounded (but reasonable) fear.