Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 64

[ecosophia]

As we proceed through the second year of these open posts, it's pretty clear that the official narrative is cracking as the toll of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines rises steadily and the vaccines themselves demonstrate their total uselesness at preventing Covid infection or transmission. It's still important to keep watch over the mis-, mal- and nonfeasance of our self-proclaimed health gruppenfuehrers, and the disastrous results of the Covid mania, but I think it's also time to begin thinking about what might be possible as the existing medical industry reels under the impact of its own self-inflicted injuries. 

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.   

Comments

Re: Vaccines as a class

[(Anonymous)]

>does it make sense for the compilation of a "Childhood Schedule of Products Which Train the Immune System to Recognise and Attack Something" be such a public health sensitive issue that a listing there can be the entry into complete product liability immunity?

I didn't get all of the recommended DTP shots as a kid because of the whole "parents sued the manufacturers over the side effects, after a while no manufacturer would make it anymore" thing. I'm the exact right age of tail-end Gen Xer to be affected by that. I then got whooping cough as a teen. No fun but survived fine.

And then the CDC changed the recommendations to a different vaccine anyway (DTaP, the one with *acellular* pertussis, as far as I can make out less effective and also with a lower risk of side effects. Info on how the aP vaccine doesn't prevent asymptomatic transmission used to be all over the net--I remember getting that info from the CDC web site back when my anti-most-vaxes in-laws all had whooping cough and I was deciding whether to get a Tdap--but when I went to find that info more recently, I couldn't find it anywhere).

So IDK if it "makes sense" but (as you probably already know) that whole thing was the justification for it--"If we keep letting parents sue manufacturer, they'll all be scared off from producing valuable vaccines that many people do want"...(see also the contingent who are constantly criticizing the FDA for not approving lifesaving medicines quickly enough).

It really should have occurred to them that the liability shield would create an incentive to get new products onto the childhood schedule. But I believe it didn't, because that's the kind of thing that often doesn't occur to people. It's not the spirit of the law, after all.

Re: Vaccines as a class

[scotlyn]

Interestingly, the DTP vaccine IS still manufactured and sold/distributed in Africa, Asia, and some other non-western countries. It was a link I posted regarding a solid research result showing that *this specific product* was raising the risk of dying of all causes in African children (specifically children from Guinnea Bissau) several fold, and the reaction I got, which immediately expanded the discussion to "all vaccines" and to the social politics thereof, which got me (eventually) thinking on the differences between the specific case and the general case.

The case against the specific product called the DTP is exceedingly strong, and it should certainly have been removed from the WHO's list of recommended vaccines as soon as this research emerged. But it has not.

But, also, the fact that you got a case of whooping cough as a teenager signals another aspect of mass vaccination campaigns that is seldom mentioned. Which is the way they alter patterns of susceptibility within a population. I am not familiar with the specifics of whooping cough, so I will give a different example. Prior to vaccination campaigns, with several different iterations of measles vaccines, the normal "susceptible pool" in humans consisted of people between 2 and 15 years old. Up to age 2 most children were protected by the antibodies they received from their mothers, who would have been exposed, and most likely infected, when THEY were children. People older than 15 were almost universally immune for life due to their own bout of infection as a child. And, every few years there would be a year when measles would sweep through this susceptible population. Between the 1800's and the 1960's the drop in death rates from measles was precipitous, and by the time I myself got the infection (in 1963, the first year a vaccine was on offer), parents did not fear the infection at all. It was just one of those childhood things. But here came the vaccines, and well, why not?

So, very early in the 1980's researchers began to notice and study outbreaks of measles in highly vaccinated populations - eg. schools and colleges with 95%+ vaccination rates. In the media, outbreaks were always blamed on the "vaccine hesitant", but the research literature makes it clear that the outbreaks were possible because vaccinated people could become vectors as easily as unvaccinated people could. They could not help but conclude that measles vaccination was NOT offering the same protection as measles infection, and that the wearing off of vaccine effectiveness could not be predicted. One population change that was noted was that measles was now appearing in adults older than 15, who tended to have a rougher time with the infection. Also, measles was now appearing in babies younger than 2, who (apparently) were no longer protected by their vaccinated instead of infected mothers' antibodies. And measles is also much more serious in babies. Both these alterations in susceptible populations may be almost entirely due to mass vaccination for an infection which had long ceased to present an existential threat to those most susceptible.

Just as antibiotics are now known to do, vaccines exert evolutionary selection pressures on both susceptible populations and pathogens, effects which are only beginning to be properly studied.