Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Politics

The “spiritual child” of the Great Barrington Declaration goes antivax

The Brownstone Institute, “spiritual child of the Great Barrington Declaration,” just went full on hard core antivax (and fascist), just as Orac has been predicting.

I must admit that I’m getting a little tired of writing about the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) and its “spiritual child,” the Brownstone Institute, which was founded by Jeffery Tucker, former editorial director of the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER), the right wing think tank that brought together the authors of the GBD together. (I did, after all, just write about the GBD and one of its authors Jay Bhattacharya on Wednesday.) Unfortunately, however, the GBD, its authors, its supporters, and its “spiritual child” just keep providing me such a “target-rich” environment for a blogger that I can’t ignore them, whether they’re parroting antivax tropes like fantasizing about a “Nuremberg 2.0” in which “lockdowners” and supporters of vaccine mandates and other public health interventions will be called to account for their “crimes”; likening public health interventions to slow the spread of COVID-19 to slavery, religion, or a Communist dictatorship; or just plain spreading pure, unadulterated antivax misinformation.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look as though the GBD’s spiritual child is going to give me a break any time soon, at least not if an article that I saw yesterday is any indication. Entitled What Covid Crimes Will Victims Not Forgive? and co-authored by Paul Frijters, Gigi Foster, and Michael Baker, it marks a definite moment when the mask—yes, Brownstone’s mask—slipped so far that GBD supporters and the Brownstone Institute can no longer credibly deny that the GBD spiritual child has gone full-on, hard core antivax conspiracy theory bonkers and violent insurrectionist. (Oh, no! “Crimes”! Where have we heard that before? I remember! From GBD authors Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as from the founder of the GBD’s “spiritual child,” Jeffrey Tucker—complete with a picture of a guillotine!) Of course, I’ve long been predicting that this would happen, given that the GBD was premised on a a favorite claim that antivaxxers have been repeating for years and years, namely that “natural herd immunity” will stop pandemics more effectively than vaccines; so it’s no surprise to me. I still feel the need to document it though, now that the Brownstone Institute is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from the websites of antivaxxers like Joe Mercola or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

One reason is simple if you think about it. The entire concept behind the GBD’s “let ‘er rip” strategy for COVID-19 was that the disease was not dangerous to the young and the healthy. Since AIER and its useful idiots who wrote the GBD believed that “lockdowns” were doing far more harm than the virus—never mind those hundreds of thousands of deaths even by October 2020 in just the US alone—they argued that governments should abandon “lockdowns” and just let the coronavirus rip through the “healthy” population. But what about those who aren’t young and healthy—also—never mind that the death toll among those under 50 has not been insignificant—you ask? The GBD was happy to provide a “solution” in the form of “focused protection,” apparently the idea that focusing “lockdowns” on just the elderly and those with health conditions and comorbidities that place them at high risk for severe disease and death (e.g., diabetes, heart disease, and the like) would keep them safe and allow those at “low risk” to go on with their lives, work, and produce, so that the capitalist overlords whom AIER serves could make money hand over fist again. I exaggerate, but not by a lot.

In fact, look at another article on the Brownstone Institute, where Frijters et al recommend…madness:

Think of some of the experiments that could have been tried in a more cooperative environment. As one example, suppose a regional government accepts the inevitability of a large wave of infections. It staffs the part of its health system in contact with the most vulnerable elderly with workers from other countries who had already recovered from the virus and were therefore probably immune. 

Such a region could also try to achieve immunity in its own healthy population by openly encouraging healthy volunteers below age 60 to live normal lives, in the full knowledge that doing so brought a higher risk of infection. Once recovered, the now immune healthy people then could take over the care of the elderly and provide a larger pool of immune workers to share with other regions. You might call such a two-pronged experiment ‘targeted protection and exposure’. It capitalises on the general idea of herd immunity, which is that if some fraction (like 80%) of a population acquires immunity to a disease then small waves of infections die out because the virus is not transmitted widely enough to survive, protecting the 20% who are not immune.

The bottom line is that the reason that most public health physicians, scientists, and policymakers didn’t take the GBD seriously as an intervention plan for the pandemic was not because they were so ideologically tainted that they denied harm from lockdowns and were hopelessly biased against such a plan. Rather, it was because, from a practical and scientific point of view, the GBD could never work. It just never made sense, an assessment that was pretty clear at the time given that “natural herd immunity” was not achievable any time soon even if the virus didn’t mutate into more transmissible strains that could evade the immune system. Now that SARS-CoV-2 has proven itself to be quite adept at producing variants that are more transmissible and can evade immunity from prior infection, a GBD-like approach is even more obviously folly than it was in 18 months ago.

Now here’s the weird thing. (At least, you’d think it was a weird thing if you didn’t understand the anti-public health ideology shared by “lockdown” opponents, antimaskers, and antivaxxers.) You’d think that, two months later, when COVID-19 vaccines started becoming available to the public starting with healthcare workers and frontline workers, GBD supporters would have embraced them as the single best way to actually implement a policy of “focused protection.” They did, at first, but now, as the article about “crimes” demonstrates, the GBD and its spiritual child have predictably pivoted to opposing anything resembling mandates about anything, including vaccines. In fact, their rhetoric now resembles that of hard core antivaxxers. I debated what to quote first from the article, but I think this illustrates best what I’m pointing out:

More and more people will start worrying that they were injected with poison that damaged them permanently, particularly if the companies selling the poison could potentially be forced to compensate them for the damage. Obsessing about how one’s health has been damaged due to vaccines inflicted by others fits today’s grievance culture like a glove: it is personal, it invites virtue signalling, it names a culpable group, it allows for draconian actions, it demands redistribution to self, and it is simple to understand.

Team Lockdown, which subsequently morphed into Team Vaccine, will find it extremely difficult to avoid blame for vaccine damage, particularly since Team Lockdown/Vaccine so blatantly disregarded public health principles and scientific standards in medical trials. That the Covid vaccine project included deliberately exposing children to known risks for no significant reasonably expectable gain will be very difficult to hide from the population in the longer run. 

No matter what distractions can be manufactured, the suspicion of permanent damage to self and to own children will keep creeping back, particularly as large majorities in most Western states have been cajoled, by hook or by crook, into accepting these vaccines.

Evidence of enlarged hearts, blood clots, long-term tissue damage, genetic alteration, immune system misdirection, and so on will remind people over and over again of the ongoing health loss inflicted upon them. Damage to their health will prey on the minds of the masses, particularly when expensive health problems befall them in the future. True or not, they will suspect that they would not have had those problems had they not taken the vaccines. 

I can see what apologists for the GBD’s “spiritual child” might say, that Frijters et al weren’t themselves saying that the vaccines are “poison,” just that enough people think that they are. That rather obvious attempt at plausible deniability won’t fly given what Frijters et al follow up that passage with, the claim that the vaccines are dangerous, including classic antivax tropes that have been dusted off, tarted up, and repurposed for COVID-19 vaccines, such as the idea that the vaccines “permanently alter your DNA,” cause autoimmune diseases, and other “chronic diseases,” and are in general “poison” due to all the “toxins” in them. Indeed, does anyone remember the “toxins gambit“? Does anyone remember that that gambit first hit my consciousness when Dr. Jay Gordon and Jenny McCarthy (and many others) were parroting fear mongering nonsense about “formaldehyde” nearly 15 years ago? Frijters et al are parroting straight up antivax disinformation dating back decades, all while trying to maintain plausible deniability by framing the disinformation as “predictions.” Again, this is a common tactic used by disinformation spreaders who are trying to avoid the label “antivax,” to repeat antivax disinformation as something that (they’re observing and merely pointing out) other people believe.

The whole idea of this article by Frijters et al is that the ever-horrific “lockdowns” were a “crime” that is going to drive a thirst for justice vengeance and retribution. First, though, they have to explain why, and in doing so they discount the mass death caused by the virus thusly:

First, people do recover from the death of loved ones. It takes about two years, but after that time passes, people are about as satisfied with life as they were before the bereavement.

So never mind about those million people—in the US alone!—killed by COVID-19! The families and friends will get over it and move on, and in around two years, give or take. Life will be normal for them again, again, never mind the million dead people (and still counting). Fortunately, one of the last great health journalists at The Atlantic (which has largely become a cesspool of bothsidesism about the pandemic), Ed Yong, has a perfect retort in an article from a couple of days ago entitled The Final Pandemic Betrayal, which when I first saw it was entitled The Grief of 1 Million COVID Deaths Is Not Going Away but appears to have been retitled (look at the URL if you don’t believe me). Now, if Frijters et al had wanted to make a humanistic argument about how harmful “lockdowns” were, they could easily have cited Yong’s article, which points out:

These experiences share qualities with other devastating crises. Sarah Wagner, an anthropologist at George Washington University who researches death and mourning, sees similarities between the experiences of COVID grievers and people whose loved ones went missing during wars. “Families didn’t know what happened and are left to imagine those horrible last moments” in a way that “still troubles their grief years later,” she told me. Sabila Khan, for example, knows little about her father’s final days, except that he likely spent them “in a warzone of an ER,” she told me. “What was he thinking? How do I even come to terms with that?” Many grievers know that dying from COVID is long and grueling. Sherry Congrave Wilson was tearful but unflinching when she told me that Felicia Ledon Crow, her best friend of 30 years, died suffering and alone. “I just hope and pray that she had a loving nurse, someone around who was kind to her,” Congrave Wilson said.

The aftermath of a COVID death is lonely too. Social rituals can help people cope with guilt and uncertainty, but during much of the pandemic, funerals, wakes, and shivas haven’t happened. Kristin Urquiza, a co-founder of the nonprofit Marked by COVID, lost her father in June 2020; aside from a bizarre virtual funeral where the connection kept glitching, she still hasn’t been able to mourn and celebrate him with the hundreds of people who loved him. And without outlets for collective expression, grief can stew. Hari Close, the funeral director, told me that some people felt they had failed their loved ones twice over, first by not being with them at the end and again by not being able to celebrate their life.

It was horrible, too, how many people died of COVID-19 alone, with no family or friends to comfort them or to personally grieve their passing. Of course, Yong also suggests why part of the reason that Frijters et al likely didn’t invoke this sort of argument:

After death, routine and social connection can help mourners cope. But grievers have been deprived of both because of America’s continued failure to control the pandemic. “In addition to mourning my dad, there was that extra layer of mourning my life,” Sabila said. Several people told me that friends or family members who once would have been supportive pillars became distant or unhelpful, either because they began to swallow pandemic misinformation or because they were simply exhausted. When Rekha, a family friend of mine who lives in Seattle, lost her dad in 2013, “everyone I knew showed up and took care of me,” she told me. That didn’t happen when her mother died of COVID this January because “everyone’s depleted,” she said.

Basically, Frijters et al are doing almost exactly what Yong talks about, discounting COVID-19 deaths by callously arguing that people do recover from the deaths of loved ones. While that is true in general, it is often not true when the deaths happen under extraordinary circumstances and people aren’t allowed to grieve but are instead told to “move on,” as Yong argues.

After ticking off other potential “crimes” and why the people will “rise up” against the “crimes” of lockdowns and mask and vaccine mandates, reasons including loss of freedom, the authors argue that “banging on about losses to freedom – as bad as they are for the longer-run development of human societies – is not the best approach if you want to rouse mass support against the feudal elites now running the show” because traction “in that area simply fades fast.” So what, according to Frijters et al, really burns people? What really gets them angry in a manner that—unlike those pesky deaths loved ones from which people usually recover within a couple of years—does not fade?

I think you can predict the answer, given the general tack of the GBD’s “spiritual child”:

What do people not get used to? They do not recover from reductions in social status. People only get over unemployment, for example, if they find another job or move into a different role that is equally socially valued (like “homemaker”, or “retiree”). 

On this basis we would predict that someone who filled an important role in business but whose firm was destroyed by Covid restrictions will have a burning and lasting resentment against that loss until and unless she finds a roughly equal-status alternative role, because she continues to want the return of her lost social status. 

That resentment will burn all the more brightly if there is a group with high status that she can blame for her loss, and whose status she can hope to capture for herself. Permanent damage to status coupled with the idea of restitution is powerful. It provides a motivation that keeps on burning.

I can’t help but note that the perception of a loss of social status, coupled with the resentment that it causes, has been a major factor in the rise of Trumpism. It’s become increasingly clear that it wasn’t economic hardship that led to his rise, but perceived threats to the social status of his base. You can even see that in Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.” The implication was that America was no longer great. I used to have a grand old time on Twitter asking Trump supporters a simple question: You want to MAGA, but when, exactly, did America cease to be great? At least, it was fun briefly, until the ranting about immigrants, minorities supposedly given special consideration, President Obama, and the like became intolerable. In any event, this very argument totally tracks. Nor am I saying that loss of social status can’t be a horrible thing to those who suffer it; I’m just pointing out how these libertarians are arguing that it’s worse than the deaths of loved ones because people “get over” such deaths but don’t get over a loss of social status, either real or perceived.

Indeed, here Brownstone Institute flacks are saying the quiet part out loud. GBD’s “spiritual child” doesn’t hate “lockdowns” because they don’t work or even really because they are an assault on freedom. At least, those aren’t the primary reasons. (According to Frijters et al, they’re secondary considerations.) Rather, Brownstone Institute flacks hate “lockdowns” because business people lost their businesses and thus their status. One could, of course, argue that if governments had better supported businesses and working people during bans on in-person dining, concerts, and other activities where lots of people gather indoors, many fewer of them would have suffered such hardships, making this a failure of governments to provide enough support, not a tyrannical policy that reduced proud business people to just workers again. I would also argue that Frijters et al aren’t giving all the reasons; they don’t like how public health interventions against COVID-19 were bad for business in general. Indeed, I suspect that the whole appeal to the small business owners who lost their businesses is just a front for the real issue: Corporations losing money—or at least not being able to make as much money—because of government responses to the pandemic.

Concern for the poor benighted small business owners is not enough for Frijters et al, though. Note how they tie an antivaccine message to the message that “lockdowns” resulted in a loss of social status that will drive a thirst for vengeance against the “elites” who caused that loss:

The insight that loss of status leads to permanent resentment also goes for lost health and lost opportunities if those losses can be linked to a current group of culprits from whom something can be taken away. The idea that an important thing was stolen which, if somehow returned, would markedly improve life right here and now is extremely powerful. The idea that vaccines did permanent damage to health, or that people were robbed of their best years, coupled with the plausible culpability in both cases of a nasty elite, would fit this bill.

Following this line of logic, we expect to see the gradual emergence and ultimate success of a resistance storyline that the masses “have been deliberately damaged by a rich elite.” Vaccine damage in particular, real or imagined, is extremely powerful from a modern narrative point of view, because it ties into the obsession with self that characterises social media and underpins modern cowardice. 

Shorter Frijters et al: “I’m not saying that COVID-19 vaccines rob you of your health and social status, but the idea that they do is feeding a ‘resistance storyline’ that the masses ‘have been deliberately damaged by a rich elite.'” (Also, Frijters et al left out this part: “Except that I really am saying that vaccines, being poison, do rob you of your health and social status.”)

Again, the idea that the masses “have been deliberately damaged by a rich elite” is a key component of what I like to call the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement dating back to decades—at least!—before the pandemic! Before the pandemic, the conspiracy theory was that big pharma, the government, and the medical profession were pushing childhood vaccines that they knew to be harmful, resulting in an “autism epidemic” and the “sickest generation.” Antivaxxers even sometimes referred to this “damage” as the “autism Holocaust.” (Sound familiar?) Frijters et al are very likely well aware of this old antivax conspiracy theory and are cynically repurposing it against not just vaccines, but “lockdowns.” Never mind that, contrary to the “carnage” that they attribute to “lockdowns” and vaccines, it’s now estimated that COVID-19 vaccines actually likely prevented 2.2 million additional deaths, 17 million hospitalizations and 66.1 million additional infections through March 2022. As bad as the pandemic’s toll has been, it would almost certainly been much worse without the vaccines; that is a hard argument to make, however, even when it is backed up by data.

Interestingly, Frijters et al even liken the coming reaction to COVID-19 public health “crimes” to the reaction in Germany that led to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, because of course they do:

Such a thing can get ugly. Once a population is truly convinced they have been betrayed by an elite that has both money and status (read: things to lose), all gloves are off. We are then in similar historical circumstances as those in which Germany found itself in the 1920s, where a belief spread in the idea that Germany had lost the Great War due to betrayal by socialists and Jews. This belief was dubbed the ‘Dolchstoßlegende’ (the ‘dagger legend’), and became a storyline used very effectively by you-know-who. Many believed to have done the betraying did not survive.

Frijters et al from the "spiritual child" of the GBD
Interesting. They have a book to sell.

I like how, right before likening the public reaction to COVID-19 responses to the “stab-in-the-back” conspiracy theory about how Germany lost World War I that fueled Hitler’s promise to “make Germany great again” during the Nazi rise to power in decade before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, Frijters et al blithely predict that a “range of popular books will doubtless emerge on the topic, drawn upon by all and sundry in political battles.” Why does that amuse me? Because Frijters et all have a book to sell just like their description and promoting the very idea likening the public’s predicted reaction to COVID-19 public health interventions to the Nazi myth of the “stab in the back” by Jews and Communists. Their book is entitled The Great Covid Panic: What Happened, Why, and What To Do Next. Unsurprisingly, GBD co-author Martin Kulldorff, and now scientific director of the Brownstone Institute loved this book, as shown by this blurb:

“A tour-de-force on how the pandemic response was driven by fear, crowd thinking, big business and a desire for control, rather than by sound public health principles. This is bound to be a classic.” ~ Professor Martin Kulldorff, Harvard Medical School.

So did Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute and the one who labeled it the “spiritual child” of the GBD and helpfully provided this blurb:

“When I received the manuscript, I was hooked from the first page and knew then that I would miss a full night’s sleep. I did indeed. My heart raced from beginning to end. As the publisher, I must say that this book is a dream for me, the book I never thought would exist, the book that I believe can change everything.” ~ Jeffrey Tucker, Founder Brownstone Institute.

But who are the authors of this article and book? Are they epidemiologists? Infectious disease experts, maybe? Public health physicians and/or scientists, perhaps? Perish those very silly thoughts! They’re economists, again, because of course they are:

Paul Frijters is a Professor of Wellbeing Economics at the London School of Economics: from 2016 through November 2019 at the Center for Economic Performance, thereafter at the Department of Social Policy. Gigi Foster is a Professor at the School of Economics at the University of New South Wales. Michael Baker, BA (Economics) from the University of Western Australia, is an independent economic consultant and freelance journalist with a background in policy research.

Economists. It had to be…economists.

Interestingly, they are not historians, either, which also amuses me. Why? If they were historians, they might have recognized that their chosen analogy casts them—and the GBD’s “spiritual child” the Brownstone Institute—in the role of Nazis taking advantage of conspiracy theories to rise to power. After all, they’ve basically called the idea that an “elite” intentionally harmed high status people, coupled with another idea that this “harm” included a permanent decline in social status, a new “stab-in-the-back” conspiracy theory akin to the one common in Germany during Weimar Republic that Hitler used, among other things, to such effect during his rise to power. They’ve basically spelled out an argument that I made a couple of months ago about why there is such an affinity between fascists and antivaxxers. The idea that there was a “lost mythic past” that was taken from the “worthy” true group (by an “elite” who are unworthy) and must be reclaimed is very similar to the idea that there was a “lost mythic past” in which people like Frijters’ business people who were comfortably high on the social hierarchy before the pandemic but suffered loss of status and health because of COVID-19 “lockdown,” mask, and vaccine policies promoted by “unworthy” elites. Strike that. It’s not just very similar. It’s the same conspiracy theory.

Frijters et al even say so in their conclusion:

For better or for worse, a story of betrayal along these lines seems unavoidable at this point. A new dagger story is coming, this time partly because it is true, and partly because it fits both the needs of the resistance and the norms of the modern zeitgeist. 

Just how powerful this story will turn out to be is difficult to predict, but what we can predict is who can be counted upon to champion it most vociferously: the businesspeople who irrecoverably lost their positions due to the Covid lockdowns and other restrictions, the young and single who for similar reasons lost the best years of their lives, and those who believe the vaccines did them and their children permanent damage. That alliance – forged in the fires of lasting hurt to human well-being – could produce a formidable adversary against the culpable Covid elites.

Actually, the “stab-in-the-back” myth promoted by fascists after World War I was no more true than the “story of betrayal” or “new dagger story” that Frijters et al say is coming. The “stab-in-the-back” (by Jew and Communist “elites”) was a myth that was promoted by the far right “elites” who had suffered a loss of social status—not to mention national pride—because of Germany’s defeat and a decade later amplified by the Great Depression. In fact, just as during the postwar years Hitler and his allies promoted the “stab-in-the-back” myth about Germany’s defeat in 1918, the Brownstone Institute and others promoting a GBD-like approach to dismantling public health, contrary to their seeming claim of innocence and that they are just “observing” the “new dagger story,” are in fact actively promoting this new “dagger story” every bit as much as Hitler and his fascists promoted the old “dagger story.”

That is what the Brownstone Institute is all about, which shouldn’t be surprising given its self-proclaimed status as the “spiritual child” of the GBD.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

132 replies on “The “spiritual child” of the Great Barrington Declaration goes antivax”

To me it sounds as egocentrism, disguised as altruism.
What about those people getting unemployed, because of the lockdowns? We shouldn’t have lockdowns, because they are bad and damaging. These unemployed people might as well get another job.
What about people dieing from Covid? Well the people left behind will get over their deaths within a few years, so it doesn’t matter. (I wonder if that isn’t damaging.)
What about vaccins? They might have risks, so we shouldn’t use them. Never mind the risks of getting Covid, because the deaths are forgotten within a few years. Don’t mind any other health damages, or hospitalisation costs.

Why should we do anything to protect people from harm? People dieing is no big deal. As long as we can do what we like, all other people are not more than an afterthought.
So don’t do anything against rising sealevels and climatechange, because if people die, it’s no big deal.
Glad I live in a country with public health care and a country that did a lot to prevent floods, by building dykes and other things to protect us.

Your last point – about history and their analogy – is reinforced by another point. Many people won’t want to die from a new disease. If you really want a “let ‘Er rip” situation, you’re facing the chance that people will take precautions without government orders, if they can. And the way to deal is to mislead your population about the virus, which appears to be – among other things – wha Sweden did when it was aiming for herd immunity.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01097-5

And there’s certainly, as you point out, an element of that in the Brownstone Institute’s writing, pretty consistently.

Where does that fit?

Perhaps it fits in with the idea of the lost mythic past in which people lived “natural” lives and how their immune system could deal with most diseases, leading to lifelong “natural immunity” to them. Never mind how many died before adulthood of now vaccine-preventable childhood diseases and how many adults died of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases…

It’s crazier than that now we have to look at this stuff like it’s a repeat of Jonestown. Everytime these politicians talk about natural immunity some of the now ex-Right Wingers blow the whistle on their leaders as playing the Kool-Aid card with their Anti-vaxx rants.

Problem here is that most of us never thought Brownstone or GBD are the leaders behind the anti-vax movement. We tend to identify governors as the cause and not the symptoms.

Reading this post, I chanced upon the ” lost mythic past” taken from the “true worthy group” mentioned which “must be reclaimed” which, for me , neatly encapsulates much of the woo/ anti-vax that I read.

Alties promote nostalgia for a past that probably never existed: our recent ancestors lived in a less toxin world**, people were morally upright, fairness prevailed across society, NOT LIKE TODAY. I have had the advantage of having much older parents and even older relatives who spoke about how the world was before my time, realistically: many of them were business people and had money; they didn’t describe the virtual Paradise I hear but about how much difficulties were part of everyday life – illnesses, wars, a revolution, political and social unrest, financial crises, poverty, discrimination, limited choices for food ( some of their businesses involved this).

Yet alties describe an Edenic past where most people lived a simple and pure life as farmers without the need for pesticides, meds and vaccines. We can return to this if only we unlatch ourselves from the fetters of corporations / government/ media. GBD/ AIER supporters see themselves as victims of BIGGER corporations and governmental control, all reinforced by media. Both want to return to the past.

** Hah!

Many of my ancestors were agricultural labourers in England and Scotland. There lives were anything but Edenic. Their lives tended to be relatively short, hard and they lost many of their children to diseases. No wonder the emigrated to Australia. Life in Australia was hard in the 1840s, but I have copies of letters some of them wrote home, encouraging their relatives to emigrate. Apparently, being able to have meat more than once a week was a big drawing card.

The “Lost Mythic Past” was only ever mythic. It was never lost, because it did not exist.

It’s almost always a mistake to take myth too literally. So it is with the myth of an Edenic agrarian past. It’s not based in objective reality, and at some level the people to whom the myth speaks mostly likely understand that. They know there were illnesses, wars, poverty etc., and if they could transport themselves back to their forebears conditions, they’d mostly say, no thanks, I’ll stay right here.

What the myth is, then, is a coded way of expressing the discontents people have about the way things are now. That is, the values imagined for the past are the inverse of what troubles them about the present. They romanticize ‘the simple life’ because they find modern life a confusing maelstrom. This gets attached to an imagined Edenic agrarian past because — at least here in the US — as poor as mid-19th century ag workers may have been, they experienced the rapid transition to urbanization and industrialization as a form of shock. Out of the fields from dawn to dusk, into tenements and graveyard shifts in sweatshops under artificial light.

Even though, as Werner Herzog expresses so well in Burden of Dreams, nature is violent and murderous, not cuddly and sweet, it’s a different category of danger than industrial or postindustrial life. Because it’s, well, natural. Which means it’s terms are more familiar, more out in the open, more understandable. Think of how many “back to nature” enthusiasts aren’t seeking a soft fuzzy Eden, but a more brutal and dangerous realm of catastrophe and claw — whitewater rafting, free-climbing, survival challenges… They pay to experience a certain kind of danger, in part to run away from a different kind of danger…

Which is a way of saying that there are aspects of the way we live now that — for all the material benefits we have received from technological advancement — appear to be leading a LOT of people to flip out. This came to a head here with the advent of Trumpism. Orac recently chastised me for expressing surprise that antivax advanced from the lunatic fringe to became a key theme of a broad political movement, represented by one of our two major political parties. But the antivax conspiracy theory is just a relatively tame addenda to a wider weltanschauung that is simply BAT SH!T INSANE. At this point virtually every major GOP candidate for public office holds that Trump easily won the 2020 election, only to be robbed by massive voter fraud by Democrat-Communist-pedophiles.

What I’m suggesting is that this epidemic disconnect from objective reality, this mass descent into madness, has something to do with disconnection from the realities of nature. The experience of this disconnection manifests itself in a variety of forms – one of which is the view of a romanticized Eden, ‘pure’ in the metaphoric sense of being independent from the corruptions of social masters and their technologies, ‘simple’ in the metaphorical sense of the dangers following something like a concrete set of rules that stay the same year after year.

“they find modern life a confusing maelstrom”

Everyone finds that. What pisses them off is their Need To Control is unable to grip it. And rather than change themselves, which would require reducing their ego to something more humble, they seek to reduce Reality itself down to something so simple and certain that they can be master.

In extremis this yields the collective insanity of Jonestown and Khmer Rouge; in more moderate instances, the soft and frighteningly stable fascisms of Franco and Pinochet (an edge that the USA and much of Europe now also teeter on).

Coddled and pampered, hooked on the cortisol and adrenaline of 24/7 safe fabricated fear, they have absolutely no experience nor even abstract concept of the genuine article. That blind pure animal terror of being dragged from their beds in the night, to witness their loved ones being raped and sliced in front of them; until finally, mercifully joining them face down in the mud.

Understand too: this fake fear which they clasp so hard to their chests is their shield; their defence. Their excuse not to connect, nor even to empathize, with all those living in real fear right now. “I’ve got problems too, you know!”—the reedy cry of every self-centered self-serving coward, eyes demurely fixed upon the light while the jackbooted monsters they conveniently enable do what needs to be done in the dark.

And who are the real monsters in that?

Because, quite frankly, if this is what the majority of humanity, already spoiled with opportunities to make something—anything!—better, now chooses willingly to make of itself, then thermonuclear warfare starts to look like a correction. True unfiltered personal Terror, seared into whatever generations survive it; permanent check to bombastic selfish Ego. As a species, we very clearly need it.

“At this point virtually every major GOP candidate for public office holds that Trump easily won the 2020 election, only to be robbed by massive voter fraud by Democrat-Communist-pedophiles.”

Good point except some of the Ex-Republicans who have allegations against their former allies of anti abortionists governors will expose at least some of their leaders of having a child sacrifice kabal or being a pedophiles. This is while Matt Gaetz is being exposed for being a Pedo.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lauren-handy-fringe-anti-abortion-activists-in-washington-dc-now-claim-they-buried-110-fetuses

https://www.washingtonian.com/2022/04/05/lauren-handy-claims-she-actually-had-115-fetuses-in-her-apartment/

@Bob Tacto: “This is while Matt Gaetz is being exposed for being a Pedo.”

Please work to understand: They. Don’t. Care.

Their “pedophile” attack is just one more weapon to use, and not even a fresh one: just old-fashioned Blood Libel updated for universal deployment across 21st-century social media. The truth of its accusation is irrelevant: all that counts is how much damage that accusation itself will cause. And this one’s so potent, just a mere threat of being targeted is enemies to shut many of their enemies down!

(Slso not an accident: a dead enemy is only so useful; whereas an enemy they can Control…? Remember this: Abusers don’t win by abusing you. They win by getting you to apologize for it.)

Once they control Language itself—who gets to use it, and how—then at a personal level their members may be free to do whatever they like behind its shield; the only house rule being that it remains private so as not to embarrass the whole. For someone like Gaetz, freely fucking procured underage girls can be his bonus reward for being such a great stormtrooper. For his handlers, though, that disgusting closet makes him a far more vicious and efficient weapon than he would be without such lovely bones in it. For the man has no Defense except his 24/7 Attack, and he will do whatever it take to ensure they never have reason to disown him.

Simple strength in numbers: no-one can be guilty when everyone is.

Eventually, if his Team cannot get him out from under those charges, they will cut him loose to be destroyed alone. But not out of honor or any sense of doing Right; only to protect their own institution while also offering handy reminder to the rest what may happen to those who inadequately serve them. A “liability” is only the weapon that has already ceased to be useful. Otherwise, it’s a weapon. And they have no lack for fresh ones either.

Abusers and their Enablers will always close ranks to protect their own, as long as the cost to the whole is not prohibitive. It’s what keeps their whole show going. See DARVO. Hell, see the Catholic Church. The only thing that they care for is attaining Power for themselves. And for them to be Powerful, there must also exist The Weak; the more, the better. (And if there aren’t enough then making more is trivial.)

Means, Motives, and Perpetrators; their perfectly priceless asset. Of course they will weaponize that; even while projecting onto their enemies as a first-strike attack.

TL;DR: Fascism selects for extreme deviancy, because extreme deviants have the most to gain and the most to lose—and what could make a more loyal and true weapon than that?

What pisses them off is their Need To Control is unable to grip it.

This is their problem. Rather than accept there are things outside you control, and hence not worth fretting over, some people feel they need to have control. Rather than accept there are things outside their control, they invent conspiracy theories to explain why they don’t have control.

@has:

Their “pedophile” attack is just one more weapon to use…

And it’s one that has resulted in collateral victims. Remember Pizzagate?

Fascism selects for extreme deviancy, because extreme deviants have the most to gain and the most to lose—and what could make a more loyal and true weapon than that?

Dead right. The head of the Nazi Party Stormtroopers was a gay man. Hitler didn’t care at first, but when the loutish Brownshirts started to become a liability, it was used as a reason to murder him and disband the unit.

@ Chris P and sadmar ( I lost a longer comment and hope that this isn’t a double ):

Gentlemen:
I find alties’ rejection of modernity highly selective in that they worship archaic, natural organic foods and traditional herbal meds whilst they tweet clean food porn/ rural paradise photos and sell “pure” products through highly focused adverts on the net . Oddly, they speak about how the present day lacks morality and fairness whilst failing to mention the abhorrent racism, misogyny, criminality and widespread poverty of the so-called idyllic past although simultaneously championing modern day aligned concerns.

Feeling out of place today and seeking out comfortable daydreams reflect fear about control as if people who lived long ago had more control over their destinies. Altie thought leaders manipulate followers’ choices by promising a return to simpler times and safer outcomes. So buy the book and the product line!

Alties’ demonisation of cities and city dwellers is especially telling: they are dens of criminals and gangs on the brink of collapse AND people are escaping in droves to the country which is what I hear from both natural health and right-leaning proselytisers
HOWEVER if you live near a large liberal city as we do, you may find this hard to believe if you notice that what used to be considered middle class housing now is now out of reach for most people: I monitor prices and learn that my relatives’ / late relatives’ homes are worth astronomical amounts ( mine is nearly there)- as an example, my uncle’s 17′ wide house is now worth over 2M!

@Xam Nargon Your citation is that CDC director approves ACIP recommendations. It is not that CDC approves vaccines.
I myself can use “language of approval” , like I disapprove your comments. Go for the full sentence

They let you comment John LaBarge? I was blocked on another ORAC article. This Blog is worse than Twitter! What a Fake and a Fraud ORAC is! A measly 50 comments (most from him and within his circle) and 2-3 days for commentary to be moderated before approval. How pathetic!

You obviously can’t get beyond the topmost level of investigation. That’s your problem, not this blogs. There are posts with several hundred comments and some with only a few tens. New commenters take longer to be approved but it settles down fairly quickly. Unlike many anti-vaxxer sites, views aren’t penalised unless they break the stated rules.

Carry on though. Why would anyone expect more from you? You’re just trapped on the usual conspiracy rails. Learn one tiny thing and suddenly you think you’re a genius.

Top points for smugness though.

I was approved. Why is this response to Aarno taking ages for moderation (aka Censorship) like others which failed to be ‘acceptable’ and never appeared in the thread?

Perhaps you want to jump into that thread and answer the points (1.) in question which none of the commentators have answered.

Thank you for allowing the opportunity to discover yet more failures by our corrupt Regulatory Agency the CDC falling on the heels of :

A. Fomite Transmission paranoia;

B. Walensky telling everyone if you get the vaccine you will not get infected and spread the virus (which was blatantly false to anyone who watched the VRBPAC meeting for the EUA on Dec. 10, 2020) and now evidenced in the release of the Pfizer docs which should have been her duty to read.

C. In addition, she learned about 95% efficacy from CNN as she stated recently? Really?

(Can you provide explanations for these points answering within that thread NumberWang?) It is hard not to notice how you (Aarno) avoid the embarrassing question of how a proper risk/benefit analysis was done to approve the EUA for children as well as the lack of data for the 4th booster.
*MORE FAILURE – ‘The CDC, which has 21,000 employees, hasn’t researched each death to find out whether Covid caused it or if it involved a pre-existing medical condition.

‘My research team at Johns Hopkins worked with the nonprofit FAIR Health to analyze approximately 48,000 children under 18 diagnosed with Covid in health-insurance data from April to August 2020. Our report found a mortality rate of ZERO among children without a pre-existing medical condition such as leukemia. If that trend holds, it has significant implications for healthy kids and whether they need two vaccine doses. The National Education Associationhas been debatingwhether to urge schools to require vaccination before returning to school in person. How can they or anyone debate the issue without the right data?’

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects-hospitalization-kids-11626706868

Finland Reports Zero COVID Deaths In Children Throughout Entire Pandemic

https://www.mcri.edu.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/covid-19_and_childrens_surveillance_report_13_210322-v2.pdf

ZERO Covid deaths of healthy German kids over 4 or adolescents

Germany (collating evidence from three sources 1) a national seroprevalence study (the SARSCoV-2 KIDS study), 2) the German statutory notification system and 3) a nationwide registry on children and adolescents hospitalized with either SARS-CoV-2 or Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome (PIMS-TS)) reported that there were zero (0) deaths in children 5 to 18 years old across the period of study.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.30.21267048v1.full.pdf

Sweden: No shots, masks, distancing for kids, and zero deaths from COVID

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2026670

Etc., Etc., Etc…

Why did my response to Aarno appear here but was not acceptable when responding directly to him?

Why are certain replies subject to moderation while others are not?

Seems like a pretty thorough response with sourced material.

Very peculiar blog being run here.

Please excuse the semantics.

CDC has certain authorities to implement regulations related to protecting America from health and safety threats, both foreign and within the United States, and increasing public health security.

The CDC gave the final approval for these experimental products for which there was no data of childhood deaths from Covid provided to the FDA to conduct a risk/benefit analysis. Love how you try to wiggle your way out of this. Where was the FDA getting its data from to conduct this analysis? Please provide sources.

@Xam Nargon,

Comments with more than 2 links automatically go into moderation. Eventually they get released as this one has. It helps protect against spamming and encourages people just to say what they mean. But it is not censorship.

As for your comments.

A. Fomites are one of several ways in which airborne viruses can be transmitted. It turned out not to be particularly common for this virus but is still a concern for other viruses like norovirus. Which is why food-related businesses like restaurants and grocery stores place so much emphasis on cleaning. And we didn’t know how important it really was or wasn’t 2 years ago when all those cleaning procedures were first implemented. When contact tracing showed it didn’t happen very often, those were dropped.

B and C If you want us to explain the comments of a public figure like Dr Walensky, please provide a quote and a link so we can watch or read the whole thing. It might help to confine your comment to just that matter.

The body’s immunity to other coronaviruses doesn’t last very long, which is why almost every one gets at least one cold a year. Anyone understanding virology and the immune system would have been surprised if these vaccines had provided longer protection against infection. However they have been shown to be very effective in protecting against hospitalization and death.

I am curious why you put so much effort into minimizing the risk to children from this virus? Two years ago I was living in Dallas and one of the first notable deaths I remember was a girl who was just graduating from high school. No co-morbidities were mentioned and she didn’t look overweight in her picture, but she lost her whole adult life to this disease. About the same time, Dallas suffered another death to a pre-school age child. So this virus can certainly kill children.

A few months ago, three children were dying every day from it. Fortunately we are finally down to less than one child a day dying. And the best way to get that down to on a week or one a month is to vaccinate as many children as possible. The Pfizer study on 5-11 children showed very low risk and no incidents of myocarditis from the lower dose formulation used for that age. And even with wide-spread vaccinations, no deaths have been noted in that age range and no significant concerns have emerged. So the benefit-to-risk profile looks very good.

I suggest you look for better references on medical matters than whatever the oh-so-very fact based Marty Makary writes for a business newspaper. I watched a little of his video with Dr Prasad and Dr Damanian and Dr Damanian felt the need to play devil’s advocate and interject that no child should have to die.

If you’d like to discuss more current information, I invite you to watch a little bit of this interview with a doctor who has been treating Covid-19 patients throughout the pandemic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLNoY6f6SE0

Tell us what you think about his comments. You can watch the first part of episode 890 to hear what they think about the 4th dose (2nd booster) recommendation and the Israeli study that is the basis for that.

Comments with more than 2 links automatically go into moderation. Eventually they get released as this one has. It helps protect against spamming and encourages people just to say what they mean. But it is not censorship.

Also this.

The posts had mostly the same commentary because the ‘moderation’ wait took forever and I tested to see if the reply would be accepted more quickly responding to Mr. Wang.

Thanks for the clarification.

Duplicate comments were allowed however on the other GBD article. I wonder why that is?

Why do posts need to await moderation after one is approved?

Why do some posts receive moderation and others do not including some which never appear with no explanation given?

I don’t have to explain myself or my commenting policy to you or anyone. It’s my blog.

However, it does just so happen that I do have a formal policy that is referenced whenever someone tries to post a comment:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/commenting-policy

Read it, learn it, live it, love it. Or don’t and get get banned. It doesn’t much matter to me which for most commenters, unless they’re longtime regulars.

Squirrelelite; that is a very long non-answer.

How/why did the CDC give final approval for an EUA when the FDA had no data analyzed by the CDC concerning childhood deaths?

How did they conduct a proper risk/benefit analysis without this data?

You are saying that 3 children a day were dying a day a few months ago but provide no source.

The CDC obviously did not have this data a few months ago as evidenced by the response to this FOIA Request:

https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Final-Response-No-Records.pdf

You can opine on the website and legal action all you want to try and shift focus; but the FOIA response is real.

You are saying it took more than a year to
figure out Fomite Transmission was not happening?

Regarding boosters; this is interesting :

From Dr. Paul Offit who advised his son not to get a booster. *The Atlantic JANUARY 11, 2022

Now there is this:

‘Vaccine resisters have accused the federal government of pushing COVID-19 shots without ensuring that the benefits outweigh the risks. But what about when one of the people raising questions about the latest round of jabs is Paul A. Offit, arguably the most prominent supporter of vaccines in the nation, a vocal force against people who spread silly myths about vaccination and himself the developer of a vaccine against rotavirus.

Well, then you listen more closely.

“It’s just sort of fait accompli,” Offit said. “I feel that we’re in a time, this sort of Covid exceptionalism, where we don’t do things the way we normally do it, which is that the science precedes the recommendation. Here, it’s the other way around,” he said.

“I just think it’s sort of booster mania. I think the companies are frankly acting like public health agencies,” said Dr. Paul Offit, a member of the FDA committee and one of the nation’s top vaccine experts. Offit said the CDC, which has the final say on vaccine recommendations, needs to develop a clear national strategy to reduce public confusion about what it means to be fully vaccinated at this stage in the Covid pandemic.

https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-confused-second-covid-booster-100047082.html

What is fomire transmission paranoia ? SARS CoV 2 is respitory virus.
CNN reported results of cilinical trial, Report was accurate, efficiebcy was ineed 95%
Finland does not have much COVID deaths in general. Why do you speak only about deaths among children under 4, not general. Again, not many COVID cases.
There is again people with morbities does not count. This is bad thinking. You submit very old data, too.
You can actually submit your risk-benefit analysis. Then I can evaluate it.
Sweden of course has lots of COVID deaths, much more than Finland:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Almost 20000
Finland has 3500:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/finland/
Sweden have shots, too:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/sweden_coronavirus_full_vaccination_rate
Higher vacination rate than in US.
So why there are more COVID eaths per million people In Sweden than in Finland. It is masks and social distancing.

@Xam Nargon You need not to post a link. Go to Pubmed, get a proper citation and publish it. Like:
Ward JL, Harwood R, Smith C, Kenny S, Clark M, Davis PJ, Draper ES, Hargreaves D, Ladhani S, Linney M, Luyt K, Turner S, Whittaker E, Fraser LK, Viner RM. Risk factors for PICU admission and death among children and young people hospitalized with COVID-19 and PIMS-TS in England during the first pandemic year. Nat Med. 2022 Jan;28(1):193-200. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01627-9. Epub 2021 Dec 20. PMID: 34931076.

@Aarno,

I would characterize their style of trolling as shadow boxing.

They don’t seem to have main point they are trying to support. They don’t respond directly to questions or statements in answer to their questions. Instead they dodge to a different, only peripherally related claim that might well be taken from some web site of antivax talking points.

Fomite Transmission Paranoia was the CDC stating the virus could live on surfaces for days at the beginning of the pandemic.

This led to a complete buyout of hand sanitizer, alcohol, disinfectants, etc.

People wiping down packages delivered to their homes and leaving them outside for days; books being quarantined at libraries; etc.

Mass mania and hypochondria was the result of this.

It is inexcusable that they did not clarify this was not happening for over a year.

A reminder for the time period this ended.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/health/cdc-covid-guidelines-cleaning/index.html

@Aarno

The CDC should be involved all throughout the approval process.

Ex. – ACIP meets/votes and gives approval for recommendations – the CDC director gives final approval to add shots to the Childhood Immunization schedule.

Groups like the American Academy of Family Physicians use the language of ‘approval’ when referring to the CDC in this process.

‘CDC Approves Use of First COVID-19 Vaccine’

‘On Dec. 12, the CDC officially approved the recommendation of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to use BNT162b2, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate developed by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE, in individuals 16 and older in the United States. The agency’s approval followed the committee’s 11-0 vote (with three abstentions), held earlier in the day, to recommend the vaccine’s use.’

https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20201214covidvacc.html

The CDC also uses this language on their website :

‘ACIP recommendations are not official until the CDC Director reviews and approves them and they are published.’

@squirrelelite

This Maddow show was at the end of March 2021.

It was known that breakthrough infections were occurring at the time
of the show. Walensky was either negligent or lying in this interview.

Walensky – ‘Were vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, dont get sick, and that its not just in the clinical trials but its also in real world data.’

Rachel Maddow in her interview with Dr. Rochelle Walensky –

‘Instead of the virus being able to hop from person to person to person, potentially mutating and becoming more virulent and drug resistant along the way, now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person.
A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people.’

https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442

https://rumble.com/vrkgip-flashback-rachel-maddow-vaccine-stops-covid-and-prevents-further-transmissi.html

Breakthrough infections were covered in the NY Post prior to her appearance with Maddow and were definitely known to be happening (as well as transmission onwards to others) from February 2021 onwards.

Fauci: ‘Breakthrough’ COVID cases post-vaccination are ‘not surprising’
By Natalie Musumeci
March 26, 2021

https://nypost.com/2021/03/26/fauci-covid-cases-post-vaccination-are-not-surprising/

@Xam Nagron I did disinfect tables for some time, better safe than sorry. Hardly paranoid,
Any number of organisations may misuse word “approval” This does not change the fact. FDA approves drugs or gives them EUA.

@Xam Nagron Finland has 3334 COVID deaths, No wonder it reports no child deaths, Bte, Sweden does report death of childrenThere is data from US (almost million deaths):
February 8, 2022
Characteristics, Outcomes, and Severity Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children in the US National COVID Cohort Collaborative
Blake Martin, Peter E. DeWitt, Seth Russell, Adit Anand, Katie R. Bradwell, Carolyn Bremer,Davera Gabriel, Andrew T. Girvin, Janos G. Hajagos, Julie A. McMurry, Andrew J. Neumann, Emily R. Pfaff, Anita Walden, Jacob T. Wooldridge, Yun Jae Yoo3; Joel Saltz, Ken R. Gersing,Christopher G. Chute, Melissa A. Haendel, Richard Moffitt, Tellen D. Bennett,
JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(2):e2143151. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.43151
131 dearhs per million children.
You should read the article and check when data was collected

@Aarno

The CDC misuses the word ‘approval’ on their website when discussing its role in the regulatory process.

@Xam Nargon Your citation:
“ACIP recommendations are not official until the CDC Director reviews and approves them and they are published”
It is not that CDC approves drugs. it is about approval of recommendations. Drugs and recommendations are quite different thing.
CDC may recommend a drug,if FDA has approved it.

“Likening public health interventions to slow the spread of COVID-19 to slavery, religion, or a Communist dictatorship..” They are like slavery because they seek to remove body autonomy (at least if you want to retain gainful employment – livelihood); they are like religion in that we wear useless cloths masks more as a symbol of compliance or fealty than anything else; and they are like a communist dictatorship in that its the state that is demanding such submission and fealty and claiming its for the greater good when it’s really for the benefit of a few elites. So yes, I completely agree that today’s public health officials are some kind of weird combo of fascist, communist enslavement cult.

So yes, I completely agree that today’s public health officials are some kind of weird combo of fascist, communist enslavement cult.

Tell us more about how you are just as ignorant about communist and fascist rule as you are about vaccines and health.

I’m ignorant as to why Novavax is stuck at the FDA if the FDA which with no data at all just pushed for a fourth booster. Or maybe you are.

Shorter la bilge: “Yoooo can’t tell me what to do!!! I’m Speciaaaaaaaaaal!!!!!!!1!1!!”

It’s pathetic, but the garbage toilet duck can’t even rise to this level of self-awareness.

Fascists and narcissists are the perfect complement. And both project like IMAX.

The anti-vax cult has found its forever home, and it couldn’t be more ecstatic.

@ John
Well Novavax is available in The Netherlands. Sad thing is, we bought a lot, to provide people who were affraid of other vaccines, but les than 1,000 are used.

So I suppose antivaxxers are just making up lame excuses.

“ I’m ignorant”

Yes, yes you are, ignorant in so many ways. Your ignorance, combined with your complete failure at educating yourself, coupled with your willingness to spread falsehoods, is on display every time you post.

Glad you support people wearing N-95 instead of bandannas for maximum protection.

I guess doctors doing surgery are secretly showing allegiance to communism or fascism or something when they wear a mask to protect patients and themselves …

Notice how people are mum on the lack of data for a 4th booster John?

Kind of like it would be asking anyone commenting here including ORAC about how one can conduct a proper risk/benefit analyses for children when the CDC never analyzed how many healthy children died from Covid.

Keep in mind this FOIA response (linked) was On March 10, 2022.

‘CDC Cannot Provide an Instance of a Single Confirmed COVID-19 Death in a Child Younger Than 16’

And this astonishing claim from the CDC which was on their website when they gave their response.

“COVID-19 ranks as one of the top 10 causes of death for children ages 5 though 11 years.” This, despite the fact that, when pressed for proof of that statement, the CDC admits it hasn’t analyzed its own data and cannot provide any.

Why isn’t ORAC interested in this?

Why doesn’t he write articles about this?

One has to wonder!

https://www.icandecide.org/ican_press/cdc-cannot-provide-an-instance-of-a-single-confirmed-covid-19-death-in-a-child-younger-than-16/

You may have whatever opinion you want about the website; but the FOIA is real. Response from :

Roger Andoh
CDC/ATSDR FOIA Officer
Office of the Chief Operating Officer (770) 488-6399
Fax: (404) 235-1852 Confirms that the FOIA is real.

https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Final-Response-No-Records.pdf

Coincidence? Odd that it took Aaron Siri to force the CDC get their $h!T together.

Look what happened after the FOIA response was received on March 10th..

It took 2 years to fix a coding error? Kind of like it took them over a year to tell everyone fomite transmission was not occurring. We should have ultimate trust in this agency!

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cdc-reports-fewer-covid-19-pediatric-deaths-after-data-correction-2022-03-18/

Overinflated deaths. At least the CDC dropped Covid deaths from their top ten list of how children die as far as one can tell.

‘The reduction cut the CDC’s estimate of deaths in children by 24% to 1,341 as of March 18.’

It looks like the CDC finally got their $h!T together and did their job.

Not as bad as The NY Times over-inflating childhood hospitalizations by close to 800,000; but still sad.

So what about the lack of data for the 4th booster has and Cloudskimmer and no data for childhood deaths to make a risk/benefit analysis.

Posted a 2nd time because this blog is far from user friendly. Or maybe, it is constructed this way on purpose concerning the reply tab.

@Xam nargon an you do some math ? 25% reduction means that 75% is real. Quite a lot of deaths.

One antivaxxer put it much better and shorter: Your health is not my business. Have you considere and it is not just your body, other people have their bodily immunity, too. You claim the right to spread the disease.

Vaccine doesn’t stop the spread so this does not apply. Spare me the Nirvana fallacy garbage. It doesn’t stop it enough to justify force.

Truth. What LaBilge wants is not the Right to choose not to vaccinate—because he already has that—but the Right to endanger and injure others with absolute impunity, free from any fear of criticism or censure.

Which BTW are also key defining traits of narcissists and fascists. So which one are you, John? Or is it a false dichotomy?

Well, yes. I wrote long about about this. The very reason that antivaxxers so quickly aligned themselves with antimaskers and anti-“lockdowners” is because all of them are opposed to public health. Specifically, they are opposed to any sort of collective action in the service of public health. Indeed, the dismissal of any sort of collective responsibility for public health is embodied in that very quote you cite that “your health is not my business” (with the corollary being “my health is not your business”). It’s a libertarian fantasy that how you do in life is solely due to your will, hard work, and effort, and nothing else.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/12/02/antivaxxers-anti-public-health/

Orac: “It’s a libertarian fantasy”

Not even that; just simple base animal emotion—“I care about myself and nothing and nobody else”—coupled to needy cloying ego that says even that is not sufficient; that to be superior it is not enough to raise themselves up, they must also press others down.

For what is the rich man without poor men to measure against?

(Even if he has to make them himself.)

“Libertarianism” may be the pseudo-intellectual spoogefest they use to rationalize it nowadays, but it’s narcissism and lizard brains all the way down: far more ancient and fundamental neurological primitives than whatever poncey pretentious cod social-philosophy they might drizzle on top.

Nail them for what they are, whether in the cold calm language of clinical psychopathology or florid prose of Anne Rice, and then leave them out in the sun.

Honestly, H. sapiens already has enough coping with those who effectively predate their own, without having to listen to dilettante monologuers too.

Libertarianism may be an intellectual spoogefest but these things

“I care about myself and nothing and nobody else”—coupled to needy cloying ego that says even that is not sufficient; that to be superior it is not enough to raise themselves up, they must also press others down.

For what is the rich man without poor men to measure against?

(Even if he has to make them himself.)

define modern libertarians. The work we see from them trying to destroy the social structures they relied on during their way up so that nobody now or in the future can have the same chances (especially not women or any other group they view “icky” and “other”) comes from that .

” the Right to endanger and injure others with absolute impunity, free from any fear of criticism or censure”

Nope. Just don’t want to join the mask/vax church.

“Nope. Just don’t want to join the mask/vax church.”

LOL you dribbling narc fuckwit: you just openly admitted everything I’ve accused you of.

You refuse to do something (vaccinate) because “I don’t wanna!”, regardless of who your behavior hurts—you, your family, everybody else.

And then you refuse to do anything (secondary protection measures) to compensate for your choice; because again “I don’t wanna!”

You stomp your feet like an entitled toddler and behave like shit just to demonstrate you have Power.

And then you rationalize your appallingly selfish shitshow with a buttload of projection, because your theory of mind doesn’t extend beyond You, so you can’t even comprehend that anyone else could have motives and concerns different to yours. Like giving a shit about other people’s lives.

So okay, John, you oxygen-thieving fuck. Let’s play.

Now I freely admit I am a nasty fucking piece of work, a venomous abusive shit unfit to be around good people. And last week I donated $1000 to UNICEF, because as a privileged member of a privileged society even I realize that life is not all about me; that other human beings are worth a damn too. And 5% of my own means to help those who desperately need it right now is the bare minimum that I can do, to justify my own continued existence.

Therefore I now challenge you (and your scrotal skin wart who has just turned up) to match me this week, and so prove to everyone here that, as awful a person as you also are, even you are not utterly devoid of humanity.

And may I be pleasantly surprised by you, although I won’t hold my breath.

You may have whatever opinion you want about the website; but the FOIA is real. Response from :

Roger Andoh
CDC/ATSDR FOIA Officer
Office of the Chief Operating Officer (770) 488-6399
Fax: (404) 235-1852 Confirms that the FOIA is real.

https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Final-Response-No-Records.pdf

Coincidence? Odd that it took Aaron Siri to force the CDC get their $h!T together.

Look what happened after the FOIA response was received on March 10th..

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/cdc-reports-fewer-covid-19-pediatric-deaths-after-data-correction-2022-03-18/

‘The reduction cut the CDC’s estimate of deaths in children by 24% to 1,341 as of March 18.’

It looks like the CDC finally got their $h!T together and did their job.

Not as bad as The NY Times over-inflating childhood hospitalizations by close to 800,000; but still sad.

So what about the lack of data for the 4th booster has and Cloudskimmer and no data for childhood deaths to make a risk/benefit analysis.

Fritz: Hi Jeff. How would you guys at the Brownshirt Institute like a blueprint for leveraging a pandemic into the sort of grievance ideology that will fuel support for the next insurrection?
Jeff: Is this John Eastman?
Fritz; No. It’s Fritz. I’m an objective economist, not a partisan politician. (wink)
(pause)
Fritz: Larry and Pete sent me>
Jeff: OK then, and by the way it’s the BrownSTONE Institute. If you have trouble remembering that, just think of Roger Stone.
Fritz: Roger that!
Jeff: Oh, you! So, keeping in mind the hot water John got in with his memo, make sure your blueprint is framed like ‘maybe this would be a bad thing if it happened’.
Fritz: Of course. The whole point is to blame the public health people for all the useful-troubles our propaganda campaign will gin up, and pretending we don’t want those troubles is essential to that.
Jeff: Consider me hooked. Can you give me a sample?
Fritz: “We would predict that someone who filled an important role in business but whose firm was destroyed by Covid restrictions will have a burning and lasting resentment against that loss until and unless she finds a roughly equal-status alternative role, because she continues to want the return of her lost social status.”
Jeff: Oh that’s good, blaming the restrictions for the decline in business, rather than the fact people just weren’t going to go out for any reaqson beyond necessity with a deadly respiratory virus flying about.
Fritz: Yes. And of course, we completely ignore the fact that while smaller local businesses suffered, the giant corporations and billionaire capitalists that fund your fine institute have been making out hand over fist. Even my lefty cousin buys everything from Amazon now, for the fast home delivery, since she’s worried about catching omicron and spreading it to her vulnerable mom on a visit to the retirement community.
Jeff: We like other billionaires a lot more, but point taken. Tell me more:
Fritz: I think you’ll get a kick out of this: “The insight that loss of status leads to permanent resentment also goes for lost health and lost opportunities if those losses can be linked to a current group of culprits from whom something can be taken away. The idea that an important thing was stolen which, if somehow returned, would markedly improve life right here and now is extremely powerful.”
Jeff: You mean like, “Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains?” (chuckles)
(FRITZ joins in chuckling, which escalates into peals of laughter.)
Fritz: Awesome! I knew you’d understand…

Y’all that want to mandate me take your gene therapy vaccine and mask my kids have already done it. Should have left us alone. Reap what you sow.

“I see John learned nothing from the Salem Witch Trials.”

Untrue: John learned lots of useful tips.

So, just a couple of things that really stuck out to me from the Frijters et al article:

“Once recovered, the now immune healthy people then could take over the care of the elderly and provide a larger pool of immune workers to share with other regions.” So, let’s say you’re a 30 year old bank manager who gets COVID and survives. Great. Now you will (though unknown means) become the caretaker of a group of elderly people. There’s no indication that you would be asked if you want to do this, you would be expected (forced?) to give up your job and take on a demanding profession that requires a decent amount of training (of which you have none). Yeah right.

“People only get over unemployment, for example, if they find another job or move into a different role that is equally socially valued (like “homemaker”, or “retiree”). ”
Bwhahahah! I’m sorry, what planet do these people live on that “homemaker” is as equally socially valued as “full time worker”? Among other things, “homemaker” (what a dated term!) is not generally a socially acceptable occupation for men. (Should this change? Absolutely. Will it change through the actions and words of this group? Heck no.)

With just these two displays of astounding ignorance the authors of this article have clearly shown that they should not be taken seriously at all in any way shape or form.

Among other things, “homemaker” (what a dated term!) is not generally a socially acceptable occupation for men. (Should this change? Absolutely).

Piggybacking off this. I have an acquaintance who is a Chartered Accountant who now owns two firms. Her husband is, shall we say, a lot less qualified. When they married, around twenty years ago, they decided that she would work and he would be a stay at home father and look after the house and their children.
This arrangement has allowed them to enjoy a quality of life that would not be possible if he had been the breadwinner. And yet, the sniping and pettiness this man has received, even from my acquaintance’s sister, has been appalling. The old attitude that stay at home fathers are layabouts needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

@Julian-same. I have a good friend who guides the occasional fly fishing trip and has a home business making and selling some kind of ultralight quilt for hammock backpacking. His wife is a dermatology PA who makes a disgusting amount of money. He never heard the end of the derisive comments and taunts. It’s not like he’s sitting around…he goes in and volunteers at the kids’ school, takes them for all kinds of enrichment activities…Hell; as I sit here on the OB deck, I envy the bastard!!

“Her husband is, shall we say, a lot less qualified.”

There is no shame in that. At all.

“And yet, the sniping and pettiness this man has received, even from my acquaintance’s sister, has been appalling.”

Sounds all about the power plays.

Is acquaintance’s sister a SAHM married to a professional husband? And are they proud members of a socially conservative culture?

@has:

<

blockquote>Is acquaintance’s sister a SAHM married to a professional husband? And are they proud members of a socially conservative culture?

<

blockquote>
No, and no. Acquaintance’s sister is divorced from the father of her children, but posts a lot of “christian” stuff on Facebook. In fact, the acquaintance had taken her sister in after the divorce, only to kick her out after the sister repeatedly disparaged the husband in front of her.
“Christians” like that revolt me.

Firm agree, Julian and Yeti!
My cousin’s husband is delighted to be a stay-at-home-dad, and my cousin makes bank at a hard and stressful job and my aunt just could not wrap her head around this, ever. I think it was part of why they moved away, so she would stop pestering.

@Julian: “Acquaintance’s sister is divorced from the father of her children, but posts a lot of “christian” stuff on Facebook.”

Oof.

FWIW, I wondered if the sister’s nasty backbiting was because your friend’s success threatened sister’s own social rank. A woman who succeeds in family and profession not only ranks over the woman whose only life-goal achievement is marrying up, but rivals her professional husband as well. Confecting a reason to look down upon her SAHH knocks her rival down back a peg.

But no, just the straight narcissistic rage-out of a simplistically shit human.

Good on your friend for ejecting the toxic grasping parasite from their house, and hopefully their lives, painful as that must be. My sympathies to them too, as no-one deserves to have family that they can’t care about.

Making myself another reminder here: Do NOT overthink these people. You would think after reading enough I would remember that these people do not care about their own glass cuts. They throw their rocks because the glass house exists.

If it is not theirs and they cannot control it, they will destroy it. As with GOP, as with Putin. They will burn the world just to rule over its ashes.

To quote you Good-Company-Man-in-Chief when he went off-script for a moment of unreserved honesty: they cannot remain in power. It is not a question of absolute power corrupting absolutely; but that they are absolutely corrupt to begin with and now seek the power to indulge it fully.

From lowest to highest, the reason abusers have power over us is because we give it to them. Often as not because we do not appreciate what unmitigated monsters they are, because we do not wish to believe such horrors exist—never mind walk around in their skin.

So we minimize. We evade. We extend them benefit of the doubt, as if there was even one iota left. If ever there was need for a genuine Zero Tolerance campaign, then this year is it. Not for them, mind; for us.

The planet they live on is called Eaconomica. It’s a barren world, governed by harsh mechanical artificial imaginary ‘models’. To protect one’s peace and sanity, it’s best not to go there at all.

In what universe is being retired considered of equal social value to working in a career? In my experience it’s a big reduction in social status, as well as loss of income, since pensions are often unavailable. Many are playing the game of whether they will outlive their savings or not.

To be fair, the authors are probably operating on an odd sense of “equally”. The point seems to be that being “unemployed” is socially unacceptable, while being “retired” or “homemaker” are considered acceptable, even valued — regardless of the actual material conditions for folks in those categories. I was 56 when my mental health deteriorated to the point I had to resign my faculty position. Technically, I was on long term disability, but I’d typically refer to myself as “retired” because it wasn’t stigmatized, and didn’t lead to awkward conversations.

For info on how “homemaker” was constructed as a positive category, see the last section of Stewart Ewen’s classic history of advertising Captains of Consciousness: “Mom, Dad and the Kids: Toward an architecture of daily life.”

I’m thinking of organizing a slow-pitch softball team called the Feudal Elites.*

There are intriguing medieval designs that could be used for our uniforms, or we could honor a vintage professional team.

https://www.bjjtshirt.com/view/22238/cleveland-elites-negro-baseball-logo-t-shirt?gclid=Cj0KCQjwr-SSBhC9ARIsANhzu147JTPwGz9A-kawdKEkRRBG3iZSSZk5GLtcUrcB2NqbtFfirTUjZkoaAszWEALw_wcB

*Free vaccinations would be offered to lucky fans, and for entertainment between innings, a race around the bases involving people dressed up as giant syringes.

I miss you guys.

The set of facts presented by Coronavirus 19 and COVID lead to easy conclusions about vaccinating. Nonetheless, Orac, I appreciate the note about my understanding of other facts a decade or two ago.
Never change RI denizens. Never change.

I’m curious about your thoughts regarding mandating four polio vaccines for kindergarten admission.

And, also wondering how you feel about my getting a fifth vaccine four months after my second booster. Serious questions, both of them.

Best,

Jay
Proud participant in PfizerBioNTech Phase 3 BNT162b2 Covid 19 Vaccine Research, August 2020

We’ve missed you too.

Speaking of Jay Gordon’s understanding of facts a decade or two ago – some things just don’t change, even as Jay styles himself as a pioneering anti-Covid-19 warrior.

Jay remains on record promoting colloidal silver as “a great immune system booster”, and recommending homeopathic remedies for depression and pediatric ear infections. Sample Gordon glurge:

“I like to put mullein/garlic oil in the ears hourly for a day or two and give pulsatilla 6X or 12C (homeopathic strength–the range I have given indicates homeopathic ignorance… but it works) or lachesis homeopathically hourly for two days.”

Homeopathic ignorance…well put.

Jay still maintains currency with the antivax crowd, based on his recommendations against rotavirus and hepatitis B vaccination, and opposition to flu vaccination except in some high risk cases, as well as feeding FUD about other vaccines.

You can find this advice and other nifty stuff on Jay’s website, where it’s been gestating and creating a rank odor for years. Dear Jay, you really will have to hire someone with a pitchfork and supply of bleach (not MMS) to clean up the site one of these days.

On second thought, don’t ever change, Jay. We need the comic relief.

Thank you, Bacon. Gotta deal with anachronisms on my website.
I count on you to be a negative, ill -tempered curmudgeon and you’ve never let me down. The flu shot didn’t work this year. I give the hepatitis B vaccine to every child in my practice. I still think it’s a bad idea to give it in the first two hours of life.
Change? Pay attention, Bacon. I get new facts and I have the confidence and wisdom to not only change my thoughts and actions but to admit past mistakes. Please understand I’m not saying you lack those attributes. Just that you hide them well.

Long time, no hear, Dr. Jay. I sincerely hope that you really have changed.

Still…

“Anachronisms.” You could get rid of them pretty easily by searching for terms like “homeopathy,” “colloidal silver,” etc., and unpublishing the old articles promoting quackery and antivaccine talking points. That you haven’t done so yet makes me wonder how much you’ve truly changed and whether you’re trying to have it both ways: to become more accepted and less dismissed by the science-based crowd, while still keeping one foot in the antivax crowd.

Jay says “I give the hepatitis B vaccine to every child in my practice.”

From Jay’s website:

“Q. What is you opinion of the Hepatitis B vaccine and how do you deal with it in your practice?

A. I try not to give it to any kids. It does a very good job of preventing hepatitis B, no doubt about that, but it also hits the immune system pretty hard and possibly creates autoimmune problems. The French stopped giving this shot for a while because they thought they saw an increase in multiple sclerosis in recipients. Very few experts agree with this finding but the data were not bad. Other relatively reasonable docs think that diabetes or lupus might be on the rise because of the HBV.”

“Creating the false security that unprotected sex is safer or that drug use is safer just opens people up to the possibilities of Hep C, AIDS or pregnancy.”

So which is it, Jay? You routinely give the shot, or avoid it because you imagine it does those terrible things? And does your admitted negativity about administering it to newborns mean you’re unaware of the dangers of transmission at birth from infected mothers or a short time later from caregivers, and the devastating consequences of such transmission, seeing how many of those infants develop chronic incurable hepatitis B?

You told us years ago that you intended to remove such “anachronisms” from your website, but they still remain, as a source of misinformation for your patients. It makes one wonder what you tell them in your office, as opposed to the science-based image you try to project here.

How ironic that Jay shows up on RI to protest an unflattering, supposedly anachronistic reference in Orac’s article – then bumbles on about “anachronisms” infesting his own website!

Jay, you’re a gas.

Jay Gordon FAP-FAP-FAP: “I still think it’s a bad idea to give it in the first two hours of life.”

Nobody here gives a flying fuk what you think, only what you can prove.

And all you have ever proved—and are proving once again—is that you are an unfit hack and your medical board has a lot to answer for.

While poliovirus is less likely to kill or cause severe disease than SARS-CoV-2, maintaining the vaccine mandate is important. We are very close to eradicating wild-type polio, with some work to be done to eradicate cVDPV. We are so very close, and once that is done (and after a suitable period of time to make sure), we can stop administering polio vaccine. It may be that some of this fall’s kindergarten class will have siblings that won’t need the vaccine.

As for a fifth shot, for some people it is recommended, such as my wife. These are people who are immunocompromised or immunosuppressed, and the third shot is considered part of the primary series. For those people, a fifth shot is actually a second booster, and can be administered 4 months after the first booster. Data is starting to be analyzed for a third booster and its timing, but I would not be surprised to see it recommended at 4-6 months after the second booster, at least for some.

Jay: I could care less whether YOU got all your COVID vax shots. What I do care about is how you, as a presumably trusted health-care provider, frame pandemic mitigation public health measures to patients and others who listen to you. Do you advocate not just vaccines but masking etc. and support mandates for such when public health officials deem them necessary? Or are you on the Health-Free-Dumb convoy for COVID?

“Toxins”

Uh-uh.

The benefits of not wearing shoes at home couldn’t be, oh, I don’t know…
– leaving the crap from outside, outside, instead of tracking it all around the house. Just ask the Japanese what they think of us dirty barbarians keeping shoes inside
– letting the outside of the feet get some air. Good to dry the sweat they are marinating in. Dry feet are also not nice for any fungus passing by.
– strengthen the muscles of your feet arches (not all shoes support your arches correctly) and get to splay your toes. All good for the health of your feet.

Actually, the article you linked to say nothing else.
No mention of “toxins”.

It is like a weird mashup of “Day of the Triffids” with the sighted forced to help the blind, and the MCU where the disappearance and then reappearance (several years later!) of millions of people does not seem to cause that much societal angst – except for a few scenes with our heroes to give them a chance to. emote. Of course these are fiction.

This is RFK Jr and Del Bigtree talking points they use at rallies over vaccines. This stuff is a ploy to spark insurrections at Governors offices in November especially to spark insurrections in Albany, Springfield, Sacramento and Austin after the election.

@Bob Tacto: “This stuff is a ploy to spark insurrections”

Sure, that’s their secondary strategy if their primary attack fails. Their immediate goal is to fire up their extremist followers so that every single one of them turns out on voting day, while simultaneously making the entire field so repugnant to moderates that enough of them will keep their distance in disgust.

As they’ve already learned, real insurrection is vastly harder to pull off than Red Dawn taught them. It’s their attempt to control the ballot box which is the real danger, and that’s the strategy that needs to be destroyed before culmination.

So okay, they want to play poison-the-well? Poison theirs first. Demand of all these brave 2A warriors posting their brave 1984 memes to explain why the hell they aren’t on planes to Ukraine to halt Vladimir’s child-raping butchers dead in their tracks. Is this not precisely the sort of Worthy Cause for which they declare they are born?

Hell, when even an effete metrosexual limp-wristed socialist like George Orwell, who probably never even knew one end of a gun from the other, took up voluntary arms and shipped off to a foreign land to fight the fascist menace then overrunning its citizens, then what are these freaking professionals who’ve been training for it all their lives still waiting for? A scented invitation? Do they really want to be shown up by socialists all their lives? Or do they enjoy it really, like piss games with Russian prostitutes, dirty little kinksters that they are?

So put up… or bluster like the blowhard pussies we already take them for, that everyone hears.

has:
“… why the hell aren’t they on planes to Ukraine…”

Which would make perfect sense but some alties/ righties have already decided that the butchers/ rapists/ Nazis are actually Ukrainian including their president!!!
That’s what I’ve been hearing at NN and PRN. Insanity.

One consolation is that most people of any political stripe today are sympathetic to Ukraine and Zelensky. I hope that some of the crazies I hear ( like Del and RFK jr especially) will be so sure of themselves that they’ll keep showboating, lying, exaggerating in such a fashion that all but the most deranged of their deluded followers will wake up to their BS.

Reading the Brownstone Institute article cited here, I was struck by the opening illustration of a group of angry people, fists raised, clearly angry. It reminded me of the Capitol insurrection on January 6th, in which a group of several thousand, outraged by a lie, threatened the operation of a democratic government, as they tried to overthrow a legitimate election and keep a President who lost an election in office, all while proclaiming they wanted to “stop the steal.” Frijters et.al. Are doing the same thing, whipping up people with an irresponsible lie, saying that the vaccine has harmed them and encouraging this unreasoning anger. Don’t these authors realize that this is what they are doing? Fantasies of revenge are also a big part of the Q Anon conspiracy; encouraging violence in service of a lie is no way to have a productive conversation.

@Cloudskimmer: “Don’t these authors realize that this is what they are doing?”

Oh, Good Lord. I appreciate you’re a decent human being, possessing an honest nature, empathy, insight, willingness to extend benefit of the doubt, and all; but even so.

Trump and his 1/6 groupies were just a dumb careless accident; stealing 15 minutes of fame for themselves just because they could. But that was just a red flag foolishly hoisted by greedy inept amateurs off-mission; not the actual event. The original decades-long Plan, for gently migrating the US to a soft One-Party State—begun under Goldwater and Nixon’s Southern Strategy, through recruitment of the Religious Right, Newt Gingrich, Fox News, and 9/11 opportunism, and now finally reaching culmination—hardly felt the bump. Because that monster is built and run by proper professionals.

So of course these authors know what they’re doing: they’re Enabling it!

Even Hitler had his army of third-tier intellectual lickspittles delighted to rationalize Gleichschaltung for their own profit. You think Intelligenzaktion gave them even a moment’s pause for thought? Hell, it rid them of their competition!

This is not a zero-sum game they are playing. They can afford to lose while still winning—all it demands is you lose far more.

So, please, stop trying to predict and understand their behavior using your own as reference. Because you are a good and empathetic creature and they are straight predators; and projecting one model onto the other will only get you eaten first.

I sincerely hope that (1) I’m not as naive as you think I am, (2) the world is not as bleak as you think it is, and (3) the Republicans aren’t about to rise up and slaughter those who disagree with them.
In general, people see themselves as good and acting for the best. Very few look in the mirror and see a villain. People have a way of accommodating conflicting viewpoints; it really is possible to have contradictory beliefs. With a substantial proportion of the electorate acting on fictional beliefs, and wanting to impose those beliefs we are all in a lot of trouble.

@ has
On one hand the Haidt piece you linked (Enabling!) makes some now commonplace but useful points about social media. On the other hand, there’s also enough false equivalence and both-sides-ism in there to make me want to barf.

@cloudskimmer
1) I don’t know if you’re naive, but you may not be aware of just how much crazy is out there in high traffic, legitimated, ‘conservative’ venues.
2) The world is actually more bleak than has articulates, as there is essentially zero chance we’ll head off climate-change driven catastrophes that will result in the nasty deaths of billions – yes, Billions – through wars, famine and pestilence.
3) Not only do many in the US right adore Putin, there are scores of (mostly lower level) Republican candidates and activists calling for the perpetrators of the ‘Biden steal’ to be tried for treason, followed by a public hanging.

Check this article about GOP candidates for Senate in Ohio racing to new nadir’s in one-down-manship. Then reflect that the Senate is the supposed institution of careful sobriety and polite debate. You can see the insurrection, and the body count, from there.

@cloud: Most Republicans won’t. They will, however, happily go along with those who will. Evidence: they already do.

Fascism isn’t built on a vast monolithic army of jackboots but on a hard core of enthusiastic abusers and a large number of willing enablers; all the “Good Germans”. Frankly I’ve more respect for the thugs: at least they have integrity.

(And yes, I realize your question was probably rhetorical; but soft-soaping/pulling punches is one of the problems.)

@sadmar: Yeah, I was not impressed at the both-sides equivocation. (Not saying it was entirely wrong, but when the difference is between being rude to your neighbor and eating your neighbor’s face I think editing is appropriate to clarify the key point.) But if that’s the shit pie that needs eaten these days just to serve up the apple, then whose fault is that? Like I say, these Reich-wing motherfuckers have already seized control of Language and they are very good at playing our own decencies against us.

Barry Eisler said “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.” I disagree. That’s the very definition of Army. The only difference is whether your monsters can be ethical ones. Theirs are not; and the only reason we avoid doing the terrible algebra is because we already know its answer, and what it implies for us.

This is why I say: embrace your anger, stoke it to white hot righteous rage, and use that fury to raise an army at the election box. Because if y’all don’t smash the extremists back into the margins by those ethical civilized means, you know what the alternatives that will be left to you will be: violent (and probably ineffective) 2A-mandated revolution, peaceful (and certainly ineffective) virtue-signalling protest, or just shutting up and being Good Germans all.

And while I am not myself American, I can do extremely simple math: we already have two fully fascist superpowers, a third just over the line (India), and the US teetering on joining them as effective one-party state. And with all four ranged against it, Europe will crumble. And since I do live there (despite what my fellow fuckwit denizens of Airstrip One may believe), it is in my direct personal interest that y’all wake up and smell the fragrant trees of burning niggers.

So I mean it as the greatest mark of respect when I say, in the style of paraphrased apocryphal Gandhi: I very much like your Democracy; your Democrats, however, desperately need to find their teeth.

In other altie/ CT news…

Alex Jones’ InfoWars filed for bankruptcy protection which will put civil litigation on hold: Jones is being sued by parents of children murdered at Sandy Hook School when he claimed that the slaughtered students were “crisis actors”.
I guess that Mike Adams and other alties will have to lie more cautiously.

They don’t need to lie more cautiously. All they have to do is hide their money, then declare bankruptcy to avoid the fines. It’s disgraceful that Jones might escape accountability for his lies, and the harm he inflicted on the families of children who were killed. Does anyone need more to see the harm of “just asking questions”?

@Xam Nargon,

You wrote 55 lines, I wrote 57. But whatever.

WordPress is what it is. Most of the problems are beyond the control of even a powerful computer like Orac.

One of my biggest complaints is the disappearing comment glitch.

Sometimes when you click on one of the older comments in the list, the newer comments disappear from the recent comments list.

An even bigger one is that the link to a comment doesn’t work. It opens the main article and most of the comments, but the one you are trying to read isn’t there.

That seems to be happening with your last reply to me.

I’ll reply to your questions when I can finally read them.

@squirellelite.

So your answer/source/firm documentation for your claim of 3 children dying a day a few months ago is this?

Are you talking early 2022? Late 2021?

Taken from your reply :

‘data files for 2021 will be available in late 2022’

Will get back to you on the other points.

Just wanted to clarify this before moving on.

Also from the FOIA

NCHS has not conducted the analyses requested for this age group and therefore cannot
provide you with a data product. Per HHS FOIA regulations at 45 CFR 5.1(a)* NCHS is not
required to perform research, create new records, or perform analysis of existing records for
FOIA requests. However, data users may do their own analyses by downloading NCHS public use mortality files, which include all conditions and diseases reported on the
certificate. Datasets are available at
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm#Mortality_Multiple and
documentation is available at
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mortality_public_use_data.htm. Data files for 2020 are
currently available and data files for 2021 will be available in late 2022.

So the CDC and NCHS don’t research these individual cases or create their own records about them. They aggregate reports from the state and county medical departments into their data reporting system.

Cloudskimmer gave a link to the result of a query with that system.

Xam just doesn’t want to believe it, even after the CDC fixed the data glitch they were upset about.

Also, Pfizer (and Moderna and Janssen) did large scale trials on 10’s of thousands of subjects to establish the effectiveness and safety of their vaccines in preventing severe Covid-19 and hospitalizations and deaths. The vaccines were safe enough within the power of those studies to receive an EUA and subsequent full approval.

For the 12-15 year age group, Pfizer did not deem it necessary to establish the effectiveness in preventing disease. Instead they tested a smaller group in a shorter trial to see if a lower dose would give a comparable antibody response (non-inferiority).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8174030/

The ACIP of the CDC recommended approval and the FDA gave the vaccine an EUA for that age group.

Subsequent follow-up surveillance confirmed the safety and effectiveness.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34351881/

As of July 16, 2021, approximately 8.9 million U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years had received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.* VAERS received 9,246 reports after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination in this age group; 90.7% of these were for nonserious adverse events and 9.3% were for serious adverse events, including myocarditis (4.3%). Approximately 129,000 U.S. adolescents aged 12-17 years enrolled in v-safe after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination; they reported local (63.4%) and systemic (48.9%) reactions with a frequency similar to that reported in preauthorization clinical trials. Systemic reactions were more common after dose 2. CDC and FDA continue to monitor vaccine safety and provide data to ACIP to guide COVID-19 vaccine recommendations.

@squirrelelite

So your answer/source/firm documentation for your claim of 3 children dying a day from Covid a few months ago is this?

Taken from your reply :

‘Data files for 2021 will be available in late 2022’

Did you mean early 2022? How would that be possible?

Will get back to you on the other points.

Just wanted to clarify this before moving on.

Garbage Commentary from Dr. Daniel Griffith on myocarditis.

Results.– The microscopic examination revealed features resembling a catecholamine-induced injury, not typical myocarditis pathology.

Conclusions.– The myocardial injury seen in these post-vaccine hearts is different from typical myocarditis and has an appearance most closely resembling a catecholamine-mediated stress (toxic) cardiomyopathy.

https://meridian.allenpress.com/aplm/article/doi/10.5858/arpa.2021-0435-SA/477788/Autopsy-Histopathologic-Cardiac-Findings-in-Two

More concerning Dr. Griffith:

MRI follow-up study :

‘(68.8%) had persistent LGE

The presence of LGE is an indicator of cardiac injury and fibrosis and has been strongly associated with worse prognosis in patients with classical acute myocarditis. In a meta-analysis including 8 studies, Yang et al found that presence of LGE is a predictor of all cause death, cardiovascular death, cardiac transplant,
rehospitalization, recurrent acute myocarditis and requirement for mechanical circulatory support.’

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(22)00282-7/fulltext

Something to keep in mind about Dr. Griffith’s comments concerning Covid related myocarditis.

ICD codes are not reliable for myocarditis from Covid as they are referring to elevated troponin levels often occur without Covid from the stress of the hospital. Myocarditis from Covid-is typically NOT CLINICALLY VALIDATED with EKG, electrocardiograph readings or MRI’s.

In addition: (it would be useful if ORAC allowed screenshots)

Conclusion – ‘as a passive system, VAERS data are subject to reporting biases in that both underreporting and overreporting are possible.38 Given the high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, underreporting is more likely. Therefore, the actual rates of myocarditis per million doses of vaccine are likely higher than estimated.’

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

So you have no statements to make about Dr Griffin’s clinical update, just a sentence fragment.

The first reference is an unpublished abstract about results from 2 autopsies. There is nothing about the case histories of these two people. The abstract mentions “myocarditis”, so it’s unclear what the diagnosis was. That withstanding, it’s difficult to draw significant conclusions based on only two cases. And it would also be helpful to know if there were other causes of stress prior to the vaccinations.

There are lots of references on catecholamine-mediated stress predating the Covid-19 pandemic including cancer.

The second is more interesting since it is a published article. They found 16 patients with acute-phase and follow-up cardiac MRI’s and compared them to see what they could see.

Median hospital length of stay was 2 days (range 1-4 days) with no intensive care unit admission and no significant morbidity or mortality. All patients had resolution of chest pain and down-trending serum troponin level before discharge.

and

Follow-up cardiac MRI LVEF (57.7 ± 2.8%) was significantly improved from initial (54.5 ± 5.5%, P < .05), and none of the patients had regional wall motion abnormalities. LVEF by echocardiogram was normal for all patients at the time of follow-up. Eleven patients (68.8%) had persistent LGE, although there was a significant decrease in the quantifiable LGE% (8.16 ± 5.74%) from the initial study (13.77 ± 8.53%, P < .05). Cardiac edema resolved in all but 1 patient.

So all the patients were getting better, but 11 of the 16 had persistent LGE. The clinical significance of this is unknown since we don’t have a larger database of patients with a similar condition following vaccination to compare with.

Also this might not be representative of the general population of young boys who get cardiomyopathy after a vaccination because of the selection criteria requiring prolonged symptoms enough to merit a follow-up MRI.

Little is known about the prognostic value or expected evolution of these cardiac MRI abnormalities associated with post–COVID-19 mRNA vaccine myopericarditis.

TWiV 890 also talked about myocarditis. It doesn’t seem to happen with the flu vaccines, but does happen after smallpox vaccination, which is why a prophylactic reintroduction of that vaccination some years ago was cancelled.

Also delaying the second shot seems to reduce the risk of cardiomyopathy.

And all the discussion of cardiomyopathy makes it easy to neglect all the other negative effects of getting infection-acquired immunity instead of being vaccinated, like long Covid-19, increased risk of death, prolonged hospitalization and immediate death.

It is hard to take anyone seriously who promotes a drug which causes renal failure.

Dr. Griffith is an idiot.

‘Kidney disorders as serious adverse drug reactions of remdesivir in coronavirus disease’

httpsq://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907730/

@xam nargon Obviously. remdesivir medication was stopped when kidney problem appeared, as stated in the paper you linked. Read the whole paper before making statements.

It is hard to take anyone seriously who doesn’t understand the complicated tradeoffs that can be involved in choosing how to treat a hospitalized patient and who apparently has never listened to a TV drug ad.

But I think I’ve spent enough time chasing down miscellaneous links from someone who apparently can’t give a prima facie explanation in support of their claims.

If I see such in the future, I may change my mind.

Until then, TTFN.

@Xam Nargon Do you think that clinical trials are about evaluating IFR ? Not even a close.
There is a paper for you:
Martin B, DeWitt PE, Russell S, Anand A, Bradwell KR, Bremer C, Gabriel D, Girvin AT, Hajagos JG, McMurry JA, Neumann AJ, Pfaff ER, Walden A, Wooldridge JT, Yoo YJ, Saltz J, Gersing KR, Chute CG, Haendel MA, Moffitt R, Bennett TD. Characteristics, Outcomes, and Severity Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children in the US National COVID Cohort Collaborative. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e2143151. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.43151. PMID: 35133437; PMCID: PMC8826172.
“A total of 1 068 410 children were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 167 262 test results (15.6%) were positive (82 882 [49.6%] girls; median age, 11.9 [IQR, 6.0-16.1] years). Among the 10 245 children (6.1%) who were hospitalized, 1423 (13.9%) met the criteria for severe disease: mechanical ventilation (796 [7.8%]), vasopressor-inotropic support (868 [8.5%]), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (42 [0.4%]), or death (131 [1.3%]). ”
131 deaths among a million children. How many million children live in US ?

Hey guys who never answered my main question about risk/benefit analysis in relation to the CDC dropping the ball in analyzing data concerning childhood deaths from Covid!

@aarno

Stopping the administration of a drug to patients also miraculously eliminates the toxicity of the drug whenever it is administered to anyone else?

How does that work?

Maybe there is a Lazarus effect as well where those who died from it from causes such as hypotension, renal failure or multiple organ failure are suddenly raised from the dead?

I have not taken the time to read the citation you provided.

Were those children in the citation given REM-Death-Severe?

You know, the drug being looked into for Covid treatment where the end point of the study was changed midway through in a demonstration of scientific misconduct.

@ squirrelelite

I stand with the assessment that Dr. Griffith is an idiot.

The Federal Government should not be incentivizing this drug by paying hospitals bonuses when using it on Medicare patients.

Remdesivir is toxic.

The Data safety monitoring board Terminated the use of Remdesivir in the following study because of the increased risk of death when exploring its use for Ebola patients.

‘On August 9, 2019, when 681 patients had been enrolled, the data and safety monitoring board conducted an interim analysis on data from 499 patients and, on the basis of two observations, recommended terminating random assignment to ZMapp and remdesivir.’ –

Note the tables that The Most deaths in the trial occurred in the Remdesivir treatment arm.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed

As well –

‘The combination of the terms “acute renal failure” and “remdesivir” yielded a statistically significant disproportionality signal with 138 observed cases instead of the 9 expected. ROR of ARF with remdesivir was 20-fold (20.3; confidence interval 0.95 [15.7-26.3], P < 0.0001]) that of comparative drugs.’

Remdesivir and Acute Renal Failure: A Potential Safety Signal From Disproportionality Analysis of the WHO Safety Database
Alexandre O Gérard et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Apr.

@Xan Nagron ACIP document is here:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7045e1.htm
A cost benefit analysis is included, and COVID dataset available without FOIA.
Did you notice that remdesivir is dropped in all cases when kidney problems did appear ? No one wouyld use a drug that causes obvious sise effects.
You of course did not read my citation. It has 131 deaths, which is very severe indeed.
Issue is actually how to diagnose myocarditis. Want to do that ?

@Aarno

The CDC should be involved all throughout the approval process.

Ex. – ACIP meets/votes and gives approval for recommendations – the CDC director gives final approval to add shots to the Childhood Immunization schedule.

Groups like the American Academy of Family Physicians use the language of ‘approval’ when referring to the CDC in this process.

‘CDC Approves Use of First COVID-19 Vaccine’

‘On Dec. 12, the CDC officially approved the recommendation of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to use BNT162b2, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate developed by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE, in individuals 16 and older in the United States. The agency’s approval followed the committee’s 11-0 vote (with three abstentions), held earlier in the day, to recommend the vaccine’s use.’

https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20201214covidvacc.html

The CDC also uses this language on their website :

‘ACIP recommendations are not official until the CDC Director reviews and approves them and they are published.’

Again, FDA is the regulatory body.
The CDC advises.
From your quote “officially approved the recommendation” – Note that the thing that is being approved is not the vaccine, it is the recommendation for use in individuals 16 and older.

There are FDA approved vaccines that the CDC does not recommend for children, or for all adults (many travel vaccines like Yellow Fever, for example).

(And going back to your comment earlier that everyone who works for CDC should have been involved in tracking down the child COVID deaths; CDC has dozens of other diseases and conditions that they are still working on in addition to COVID. There are still food-borne disease outbreaks to investigate, HIV prevention programs to run, for starters. They can’t devote everyone to COVID.)

The quote was from the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was not mine.

At least you finally admit that the CDC FAILED in doing its job (albeit making excuses them) in theIr role in the approval process for this novel experimental gene therapy experimental coronavirus vaccine which has never been used on humans before.

“which has never been used on humans before.”

Hmmmm. Vaccine developed for a newly encountered virus. I wonder why it would have been used previously.

So many firsts, previously untested on humans…..

Xam:
1) Yes, it was your quote, you were the one who quoted the American Academy of Family Physicians. It’s not like anyone else was typing in your comment. I called it “your quote” to differentiate it from the rest of your comment.

2) I’m not admitting anything about the CDC’s approval process because, AGAIN, the CDC does not approve vaccines. That is the FDA. The CDC makes recommendations about vaccines.

3) The mRNA vaccines are not gene therapy. Period. I have made an experimental gene therapy and let me tell you, none of these vaccines are it!
If gene therapy was this easy sickle cell disease and cystic fibrosis would have been cured years ago.

Your arguments would be more effective if they weren’t so obviously wrong.

@JustaTech

If it is my quote and link then there is no need for your redundancy.

It is easy to be redundant. You, squirrel, wang and Aarno have never addressed the FACT that the CDC had not analyzed childhood deaths yet were intimately involved in the approval process for this novel Product and should have provided this data to the FDA. In addition the CDC stated without any proof that Covid was a top-ten cause of death for children without clear data.

Is this acceptable? It would seem that those TRULY INTERESTED in science would be CONCERNED about this.

It should be understood that without the CDC’s approval which is an integral part of the approval process that the experimental gene-based therapeutic/therapy/vaccine (whatever one wants to call it) would not move to market.

Regulatory Agencies have been wrestling with definitions for these novel mRNA products; especially the EMA.

(In Europe they have emphasized ‘gene’ in their determination/language more than in the US.)

Frankly it does not matter if these alter DNA or not.

If the CDC is free to change the definition of vaccine than we are free to call these products
whatever we want.

They are certainly not vaccines in the very traditional conservative sense. They are failing miserably at immunization and prevention of transmission of disease.

At best they may be described as a gene based therapeutic (as they cause cells to produce a foreign protein to help lessen severity of disease; although this is even in doubt depending on what government Database one delves into.)

In finality, I don’t care if you or anyone agrees with this or not. It fits the definition of what the mRNA ‘vaccines’ are and what they are doing.

Neither one of us is ‘wrong’. We are simply using different criteria for 1. defining ownership/authorship of quotations; 2. function/steps of Regulatory processes and 3. the definition of novel products by what they are and what they do.

This commentary process is very frustrating. I think ORAC needs to look into a new system.

Just a suggestion.

I have gotten into the habit of copying responses because they do not appear and seem to be erased when sent.

Then when you resend, the one which was sent before suddenly appears, but this is erratic and unpredictable.

Sometimes the posts never appear.

Why do you not accept a mistake ? FDA approves, CDC recommends. CDC would not recommend anything that is not approved by FDA.

@JustaTech

If it is my quote and link then there is no need for your redundancy. It should have been obvious.

It is easy to be redundant. You, squirrel, wang and Aarno have never addressed the FACT that the CDC had not analyzed childhood deaths yet were intimately involved in the approval process and should have provided this to the FDA.

In addition they stated without any proof that Covid was a top-ten cause of death for children without clear data.

Is this acceptable?

You would think people TRULY INTERESTED in SCIENCE would be CONCERNED about this.

It should be understood that without the CDC’s approval which is an integral part of the regulatory process that the experimental gene-based therapeutic/therapy/vaccine (whatever one wants to call it) would not move to market. (to recommend if you so desperately need that clarification)

Regulatory Agencies have been wrestling with definitions for these novel mRNA products.

In Europe they have emphasized ‘gene’ in this determination more than in the US.

Frankly it does not matter if these alter DNA or not.

If the CDC is free to change the definition of vaccine than we are free to call these products
whatever we want.

They are certainly not vaccines in the very traditional conservative sense. They are failing miserably at immunization and prevention of transmission of disease.

At best they may be described as a gene based therapeutic (as they cause cells to produce a foreign protein) to lessen severity of disease (although this is even in doubt depending on what government data base one looks at – lessening the disease that is).

I don’t care if you or anyone agrees with this or not. It fits the definition of what the mRNA are doing.

We obviously have different criteria for defining 1. Authorship of quotations. 2. Varying importance of steps in the Regulatory Process. 3. What products do/don’t do and how to define them based on this.

Neither one of us is ‘wrong’.

Again CDC is not at nall involved in approval process. How many times this must be repeated to you ? CDC may or may not recommend an approved vaccine.
Actually, FDA,and FDA alone, does postmarket monitoring, including reports of deahs. CDC is not involved here
This gene therapy is purely legal thing. FDA use word vaccine. MRNA does not change your genes, as basic genetics will tell you. Of course they are nor failing,they generate robust immune response.
There is a paper about vaccines and IFR:
Chapman LAC, Barnard RC, Russell TW, Abbott S, van Zandvoort K, Davies NG, Kucharski AJ. Unexposed populations and potential COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in European countries as per data up to 21 November 2021. Euro Surveill. 2022 Jan;27(1):2101038. doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2022.27.1.2101038. PMID: 34991776; PMCID: PMC8739340
Read it before speaking about “miserable failure”

In Europe they have emphasized ‘gene’ in this determination more than in the US.

Care to provide evidence of this?
Last time I checked, we Europeans have called mRNA vaccines, mRNA vaccines.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: