Is there a COVID vaccine conspiracy? — sure looks like it

29 October 2021

In a brainwashed society, sane people are depicted as crazy

Bear with me, a moment, regarding the reigning COVID vaccine game.

Science-squashing is in full progress. See one view of that, here.

This suppression of legitimate data (and its interpretations) is presumably occurring to benefit Big Pharma. As well as to advance the grip of Autocratic Government's internal (and corporate-bribed) power-grabbers.

Three recent 'incidents' reinforce a case that . . .

. . . I have been making (in other ways) for almost two years.

First, the Food and Drug Administration's advisory panel — which met to authorize the emergency use of COVID vaccines in children — approached the issue without making the medical and ethical categorizations that even merely stating the problem requires.

Second, the prominent FDA physician (Michael Kurilla), who abstained from that vote — in implied protest of its steamrolling of obviously applicable issues — apparently wrote an explanation of his reservations that (we can infer) has been suppressed.

Third, a prominent medical journal refused to publish — without any explanation at all — an investigation of COVID vaccine-related myocarditis, even after:

(a) that investigation had been favorably peer reviewed

and

(b) the article had been been published (by the same journal) online, in pre-print form.

Let's take these three examples separately.

The FDA meeting's lack of scientific, medical and ethical logic

If one looks at children and COVID, one necessarily comes up with — at a reasonable minimum — six categories of kids, who need to be separately analyzed:

healthy children, who have not had COVID

healthy kids, who have had — and recovered from — COVID

healthy kids (sort'a), who are still suffering from COVID

comorbid children, who have not had COVID

comorbid kids, who have had — and recovered from — COVID

comorbid kids, who are still suffering from COVID.

These categories are mandated by any rationally sensible perspective, regarding the balancing of risks and benefits in medicine.

Especially so, when contemplating the use of vaccines that have not been thoroughly investigated — in any age group — over the long term:

Children, physiologically and developmentally, are not miniaturized adults.

And, if there are long-term risks associated with a novel medical intervention, they are likely to live long enough to experience those.

Every competent physician on this planet knows these things.

So, why did the FDA completely ignore these categories — and apply its resulting yes-no vote in a blanket fashion and across all six (easily perceived) categories?

What kind of unnuanced medical, scientific and ethical irrationality is this?

Recall that Pfizer only studied 2,268 children. And for only three months.

Only a statistically challenged person would think that this number is sufficient to demonstrate anything regarding vaccine safety across categories of juveniles — or as to the long-term durability of those vaccines' protection.

Self-contradictorily hinting at these questions, FDA panelist Dr. Eric Rubin afterward said that:

This is a much tougher [question], I think, than we had expected coming into it.

The data show that this vaccine works and it’s pretty safe . . . And yet, we’re worried about a side effect that we can’t measure yet, but it’s probably real. And we see a benefit that isn’t that same as it is in older patients.

It’s a very, sort of, personal choice.

If I had a child who was a transplant recipient, I would really want to be able to use a vaccine. And there are certain kids who probably should be vaccinated. The question of how broadly to use I think is a substantial one.

As Dr. [Ofer] Levy just said, and Dr. [Hayley] Gans said, it really is going to be a question of what the prevailing conditions are. But we’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it.

That’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines like coronavirus vaccine. And I do think we should vote to approve it.

I do not quarrel with Dr. Rubin's comment. Nor do I make of it what vaccine skeptics certainly will.

Low incidences of 'bad effects' are always only revealed, when the hugeness of an actual — not clinical trials-sized — population quantitatively permits those rare and undesirable effects to emerge.

This said — and contrary to the skeptics-bashing tone of the Washington Post article — the Post's point should have been that the FDA is letting Pfizer — and presumably Moderna and Johnson & Johnson — get away with using sample sizes (of juveniles) that are too small — and too time-limited — to obtain reliable data of any scientifically defensible kind.

A sample population of barely above 2,000 kids is not quantitatively enough to generate reasonably accurate results, regarding what could turn out to be potentially worrisome levels of risk.

This is why Rubin waffled about the vaccination question, even providing examples of differing circumstances. But then, he immediately contradicted himself by saying that the vaccines are presumably safe to use in virtually all juveniles.

After clearly indicating that he understood the medically concerning risk-to-benefit differences among various categories of children — Rubin (and the advisory panel) nevertheless went on to give the vaccines blanket approval across all my above-listed categories.

Second, the evident suppression of the only abstainer's contrarian thinking

This was Michael Kurilla. He is one of the FDA's most experienced folks.

Not coincidentally, Kurilla had previously announced his intention to retire from that agency — in a widely interpreted sign of protest against its capture by Big Pharma and authoritarian government.

Pertinently — with regard to the FDA advisory vote on children and COVID vaccines — only two traces of Kurilla's apparently originally documented counter-majoritarian opinion appear to exist.

First of those is a tweet by Emily Kopp that produces a partial picture of Kurilla's (presumed) written explanation of his vote abstention:

Emily Kopp, Statement on abstention from FDA adviser Michael Kurilla, Twitter (26 October 2021, 4:10 PM)

Second, is a reasonably thorough overview of Kurilla's post-panel opinion that was published by the United Kingdom's Daily Mail news outlet:

Mary Keratos, FDA advisory committee member who ABSTAINED from voting on vaccines for kids as young as five says there is not enough evidence all children need them, Daily Mail (27 October 2021)

Now, ask yourself why Kurilla's reasonably argued dissent appeared in a foreign media outlet — but was not heavily publicized in the United States — where it is most pertinent and important.

Links to Kurilla's apparently original record have (presumably) been erased from the Internet.

This so, even though the FDA itself should have — on scientific and ethical grounds — recoverably documented them. As of my writing today, I still cannot find Kurilla's "Statement on Abstention" by searching the FDA's website.

Did Kurilla self-censor?

Or is more going on?

Curious, don't'cha think?

Third, scientific publisher Elsevier's implied censorship . . .

. . . of an article regarding myocarditis and COVID vaccines.

The Elsevier-owned journal — Current Problems in Cardiology — withdrew an online pre-print of a reportedly already peer-approved — and previously accepted — article that had been entitled:

Jessica Rose and Peter A. McCullough, A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products, Current Problems in Cardiology, doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2021.101011 (01 October 2021)

For an explanation, regarding how unusual this inferable suppression of possibly worrisome COVID vaccine evidence is — see evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein at:

DarkHorse Podcast Clips, Paper pulled with no explanation, YouTube (27 October 2021)

Certainly, there might be all manner of legitimate methodological and reliability objections to using the United States' (inherently unreliable) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) as a source of data.

One might also be able to object to whatever the paper's authors did, methodologically and analytically, with their data.

However:

(a) the journal's sudden withdrawal of its pre-print publication of that paper

and

(b) the journal's refusal to explain why it was subsequently choosing not to publish the article

circumstantially suggest

Recall that this is not the first time that myocarditis has been linked to use of COVID vaccines in some — allegedly very small — portions of recipients.

The moral? — Are Big Pharma and Big Government throttling scientific evidence . . .

. . . that runs counter to their implied plans for world domination?

Are we living in a Marvel Comics version of reality?

Should we be careful whom we pick as heroes?

Swedish physician Sebastian Rushworth synopsized our current situation this way:

We now see an obsession with vaccinating everyone that can only be described as pathological.

The tone taken towards those people who have so far chosen not to be vaccinated is derogatory and dehumanizing to the extreme.

No effort is made to listen to their real arguments, such as that the vaccine has not been shown to be less risky than the disease for healthy young people, or that it’s hard to trust data from pharmacetical companies and drug regulators when they’ve repeatedly been caught lying and hiding data in the past, or that the vaccine is still only a year old and there is no long term follow-up data.

I’ve personally seen multiple cases of myocarditis that occurred days after vaccination.

When I’ve suggested to colleagues that we should report them to the authorities as possible vaccine side effects, the response I’ve been met with has been roughly this: “oh, yeah, maybe that’s a good idea… I don’t know how to do that”.

[M]y guess, based on this reaction, is that most other cases have not been reported.

[I]f you believe that what actually gets reported is an accurate estimate of the reality, then you will grossly underestimate the case rate.

It’s hard to maintain faith in science when it is so willfully distorted to accord with a political agenda, and when many doctors and scientists so happily go along with what is handed down from on high.

I recently learned that an excellent study on the covid vaccines, carried out at a prestigious institution, has spent months trying to get published in a peer-reviewed journal, but has been denied again and again, because its results don’t align with the official dogma.

Clearly, the journals are engaging in politically motivated censorship.

PeteFree.com

Is there a COVID vaccine conspiracy? — sure looks like it