Rona THUNDERBLAST 11/28/22
How Vaccines Drive Covid Variants – The Daily Sceptic
Variants have been one of the hallmarks of this pandemic, with ever more infectious forms of the virus apparently mutating themselves into existence at regular intervals. However. it is easy to forget that prior to 2021 variants were a rarity and the only sign of our variant ridden future was the emergence of the scarily named Kent variant (later renamed Alpha) late in 2020. The UKHSA Vaccine Surveillance Report started mentioning variants in May of 2021, but only in passing. However, as 2021 wore on new variants started appearing more frequently, and in recent reports there are 10 times more references to ‘variants’ compared to their debut. (To be fair, there used to be an entirely different vaccine report devoted to ‘variants of concern’, the Technical Briefings.)
Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 variants: technical briefings
Technical briefing documents on novel SARS-CoV-2 variants.
But ‘variants’ weren’t simply a natural process of viral evolution – not when there were people to blame. By summer 2022 there had been multiple articles published explaining that it was the unvaccinated that created these variants, adding to the cries for (mandated) universal vaccination. I believe that the idea that it was the unvaccinated that were causing the problem arose due to a misunderstanding of the role of the mechanisms that drive viral evolution. While it is true that for many vaccines the main source of vaccine escape variants is the unvaccinated, this is only true for sterilising vaccines (which stop any viral load on infection), and isn’t the case for non-sterilising vaccines such as the COVID-19 ones. To explain this effect further we need to delve into the evolutionary process.
New Twitter owner Elon Musk announced a general amnesty starting next week, under which all suspended accounts will have their suspensions lifted.
This means dozens of big names like Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, who had their accounts suspended for sharing what Twitter moderators thought was “misinformation” about Covid-19, will once again be able to use Twitter to communicate with their thousands of followers.
But it turns out it’s more than just a handful of people who were banned.
A report from late July shows that Twitter moderators working under the former management suspended 11,230 people for sharing “potentially harmful” or “misleading information” related to Covid-19.
The people silenced included doctors, researchers and others who shared information that may have appeared critical of the government’s “safe and effective” narrative, even if if the information that was being shared was government data, and even if it was a doctor’s professional opinion about what actions they thought public health officials should take.
That China’s Zero COVID has been an abysmal failure at containing even modest outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections has been proven time and again.
Beijing Is Having Zero Success With Zero COVID, People Are Having Zero Patience
The Price Of Zero COVID: China's Future
Zero COVID Means Lockdown Forever
"Dynamic" Zero COVID: Zero Logic, Total Chaos
Now, with yet another wave of COVID cases spreading across the country, Zero COVID is encountering an increasing amount of pushback from an increasingly restive population.
Rare protests broke out in China’s far western Xinjiang region, with crowds shouting at hazmat-suited guards after a deadly fire triggered anger over their prolonged COVID-19 lockdown as nationwide infections set another record.Crowds chanted “End the lockdown!”, pumping their fists in the air as they walked down a street, according to videos circulated on Chinese social media on Friday night. Reuters verified the footage was published from the Xinjiang capital Urumqi.
What is most worrisome for Beijing and the CCP, however, is that the Urumqi protests are hardly an isolated instance of public discontent.
PSA: I am writing a follow up article to go through the ‘accident’ deaths that I made a mistake on in my previous post on the VT death certificates (DC’s). Suffice it to say, despite my blunder, the signal is there, but it’s a bit more more nuanced.
How many women were legitimately killed by covid in Vermont?
This is a worthwhile nugget to explore. One of the more incessant propaganda blitzkriegs deployed by the Govt/Big Med complex to scare people about covid was “pregnancy is a [profound] comorbidity”.
To be clear, this was anyhow absurd simply because young healthy women - in other words, women who get pregnant - were statistically the safest cohort outside of kids.
However, this and similar arguments leave a little wiggle room for women with genuine comorbidities - perhaps there is an actual risk to them at least from covid, however otiosely slight.
But what if women simply were by and large never dying from covid in the first place?
I had always assumed that there were probably a small number of women who genuinely died because of covid, simply because between the 1-2 million (rough guesstimate) legitimate covid deaths (who mostly could’ve been saved with treatment), and the clinical experience of tens if not hundreds of thousands of doctors, surely there were some women who were covid disease casualties.
Which is why I was surprised to observe the following trends in the Vermont DC data for 2020 that suggest the possibility of negligible covid deaths among women.
To be clear, I am not claiming anything definitively, rather I am simply suggesting that the following observations suggest a realistic possibility that covid may not have killed any women in Vermont until the last week or two of December.
As Ms. Frizzle would say, “Buckle up everyone, we’re going on a field trip!”
Exhibit A: Excess Death from ALL Causes in 2020
Note: Make sure to read *all* the labels & axes on the charts, they are not always the same.
The following charts are the trendlines for excess deaths broken down by gender:
With Tom Brady as his quarterback, Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Bruce Arians won Super Bowl LV against the Kansas City Chiefs on February 7, 2021. Here he holds the Lombardi Trophy in Raymond James Stadium in Tampa. In early November, he was rushed to Tampa General Hospital with chest pains and diagnosed with myocarditis, with overwhelming odds it was vaccine-induced.
It is ironic that some of the most vigorous promoters and strongest voices for covid-19 vaccination in public view have also felt the bite of vicious side effects such as heart inflammation. Former NFL coach Bruce Arians has been known for his slogan “No risk-it, no biscuit,” which encourages aggressive play calling. When he was asserting in the press that all of the Tampa Bay Bucs and staff were fully vaccinated in 2021, little did he know he was going to risk his cardiac biscuit with probable covid-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis a year later.
Arians, age 70, is a prostate cancer survivor and was hospitalized twice for chest pain in 2017 while coaching the Arizona Cardinals. So he knew he was taking risks with a covid-19 vaccination tagged with FDA warnings for heart damage that can lead to heart failure and sudden death. What he may not have known is that myocarditis can strike in his age group, as shown by Rose and McCullough, and when it occurs in his age group it may compound a common problem of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease.
China's Zero COVID philosophy Sparks Protestors | American Experts Deny They Wanted the Same - YouTube
As anyone reading this is doubtless aware, the FDA initially denied the link between myocarditis and the covid vaccines; in this case, ‘initially’ means to say for the better part of 2021. Even now, they are continuing to double down on false and frivolous assertions about vaccine-associated myocarditis, such as that it’s less frequent and less severe than myocarditis caused by covid infection.
Some apologists are now trying to rewrite the history of the medical community’s stance on this issue, claiming that health officials acknowledged that the covid vaccines were causing myocarditis (however rare and mild) immediately following the emergence of indications of a potential association between the covid vaccines and increased incidence of myocarditis.
When did they first acknowledge the *possibility* that the vaccines *might* be causing myocarditis?
As far as I’m aware, the first official acknowledgement of the possibility of vaccine-associated myocarditis came at the end of May:
As most of you know, me and a bunch of other people are monitoring VAERS data very closely week-by-week. This week (11.18.22), the first thing I noticed was that the Foreign data set was less than a fraction of the size it was last week (11.11.22): down from 283.51 MB to 96.81 MB. There is a disclaimer under the VAERS data that states the following, so this is not mistake.
Figure 1: https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html.
I decided to process the data as I always do on Fridays.
The first thing I do when I analyze the VAERS data (after downloading) is compile the Domestic data set. Then I compile the Foreign data set. The I merge them along with the 2021 COVID-19 data. Then I count the numbers of VAERS IDs in both and do some basic descriptive statistics - like how many males versus females, age demographics, dose data and more. Then I start my grouped queries like death counts and severe adverse event counts, etc..
In the case of myocarditis, I always run the code over the Domestic, the Foreign and the combined data sets independently.
The first thing I noticed is that the myocarditis dose 3 response signal is gone. There is a 49% decrease in the number of myocarditis reports.
Figure 3: Myocarditis reports in VAERS Foreign data as of 10.14..22 (right) and as of 11.18.22.
The second thing I noticed was that 944 spontaneous abortions are missing.
Figure 2: Spontaneous abortion, miscarriage, still birth and vaginal hemorrhages reports in VAERS as of 11.11.22 (left) and as of 11.18.22 (right).
The third thing I noticed was that the cancer reports, although they maintain a similar age distribution as the previous weeks, as shown in Figure 4, there is a 46% decrease in reports.
Figure 4: Cancer reports in VAERS as of 11.11.22 (left) and as of 11.18.22 (right).
There’s so much more to cover, but I will update as time goes on.
See OpenVAERS for more.
Myocarditis Misinformation From “Trusted Sources” ⋆ Brownstone Institute
Imagine you are a parent of a child in the age range 12–15 years trying to decide if the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks. You’ve heard about the link between COVID-19 infection and myocarditis as well as the link between COVID-19 vaccination and myocarditis. You google “myocarditis and COVID-19 infection”. Your search returns the following featured snippet:
You might conclude that the “best science” suggests your child is at greater risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection than after a COVID-19 vaccination. Such a conclusion would be incorrect—two large studies whose findings have been published in prestigious medical journals offer compelling evidence that your child is at a higher risk of myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination than after a COVID-19 infection; moreover, the “new study in England” providing the information Google has highlighted has serious scientific shortcomings.
The American Medical Association journal Cardiology, 20 April 2022, published a research paper by Karlstad et al. titled “SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents.” In column 2 of eTable 7, we note that within Karlstad et al.’s study population there were 0 cases of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 infection for males and females in the age range 12–15. (The study population in the 12–15 age range was “at start of follow-up” 1,238,004, and at the end of the follow-up period 750,253 were unvaccinated.) Moreover, for boys 12–15, eTable 6 reports myocarditis and pericarditis events combined, with 5 events linked to dose 1 of an mRNA vaccine and 6 events, to dose 2.
We will later describe myocarditis data, for children in the age range 13–17, from another large study consistent with that of Karlstad et al.’s for children in age range 12–15. Thus, when a parent searches Google for “myocarditis and COVID-19 infection,” and reads in the top search result that the overall risk of myocarditis is “substantially higher immediately after being infected with COVID-19 than it is in the weeks following vaccination for the coronavirus,” the parent is being misinformed.
Moreover, everyone considering COVD-19 vaccination risks versus those related to infection should be aware that the contrast drawn in the Google-search snippet above between “immediately after being infected” and “in the weeks following vaccination” is extremely misleading. The “new study in England” doesn’t report on myocarditis developing “immediately after being infected”; rather, it reports on myocarditis developing 1–28 days after a positive COVID-19 test, just as it reports on myocarditis developing 1–28 days after a COVID-19 vaccination. In other words, for the study, there is no difference in the temporal association of myocarditis with infection vs. that with vaccination. Hence, the search return is spreading misinformation.
Even worse, the “new study in England” that Google highlights has serious shortcomings.
The Aging Viking cross-posted a post from Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leak
It should be read in conjuncture with my Baking Soda post
SAVEEvery Bit of Heart Muscle Matters
Pfizer and Moderna Start Cardiac Studies--Two Years Too Late
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
As a cardiologist, I can tell you the entire discipline of cardiovascular disease is oriented to preserving heart tissue. Heart muscle is largely terminally differentiated with low rates of turnover; hence, we cannot afford to lose any cardiomyocytes to damage caused by vaccines. Aldana-Bitar et al, described the excursion of cardiac troponin as about four days with COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis which is oddly about the same duration as an ischemic myocardial infarction due to blocked coronary arteries.[i]
Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Upgrade to paid
Hence the confusion with the terms “myocarditis” “myopericarditis” and “heart attack” in the CDC VAERS system and the media. The first two prospective cohort studies, where blood cardiac troponin level was measured before and after receiving mRNA injections, both demonstrated unacceptably high rates of troponin elevations indicating predictable heart damage. Mansanguan et al found the rate of heart injury was 2.3% on the second injection of Pfizer in children 13-18 years old.[ii] Two children were hospitalized with myocarditis in this 301-person study. Le Pessec et al, in a presentation at the European Society of Cardiology, revealed 2.8% of healthcare workers (n=777) had elevated troponin by day 3 after the third mRNA injection.[iii]
NTD News with Dr. McCullough: 1 in 35 Experience Cardiac Injury After 3rd COVID Vaccine: Study, Nov 11, 2022