Coronavirus

not sure where to put this post but it is virus related.

Just got back from a wonderful land and sea cruise, Rome to Spain. Only time we were asked to mask at all was on the Viking hired tour busses in Italy, that we took all of twice, two round trips to visit Florence and Pisa. Never saw anyone masked in any taxi. Don't recall anyone masked at the Spanish Steps, or Trevi Fountain and maybe just a few elderly at the Vatican. Some people (way under 10%) on our cruise (900 persons on the Viking Sky) wore them every day, but they were either old or decrepit.) Of course I caught a minor cold about our fifth day (in Pisa) probably the result of ignoring masking etc. LOL. Never got sick enough to be more than an annoyance. We just took those free nasal swab china virus tests today that the gubmint mailed out by the dozen and we are both negative. We will use up another box in a week or so, just before SWMBO goes back to work her one day a week for a dentist. All in all, Europe has far less paranoid people about this "pandemic" than we have here, based on the percentage of masked at ShopRite, lol.
 
Last edited:
Great idea

Apples and oranges, and actually the goal of the study to determine if mutations to the spike protein make the virus more transmissible. They found that it isn't the spike protein but other ones that make it more transmissible...

Boston University Pushes Back on Claims of New ‘Deadly' COVID Strain

There's some friction between the federal government and Boston University researchers after the publication of a new COVID-19 study.

BU said reports by some publications saying they had created a new "deadly" COVID strain are misleading and untrue.

“First, this research is not gain-of-function research, meaning it did not amplify the Washington state SARS-COV-2 virus strain (original virus from 2020) or make it more dangerous,” BU said in a statement, calling online reports Monday "false and inaccurate."

"In fact, this research made the virus replicate less dangerous," the university said.

The university's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories have been studying the omicron variant and the original strain. They reportedly wanted to see if omicron, while highly contagious, was still less likely to cause severe illness.

Researchers were working with this hybrid virus where they took the spiked protein of omicron and attached it to the original strain.

In mice, they found this new fused version killed 80% of mice infected. But that's lower than the 100% that died of the original strain. So their conclusion is that it's not the omicron spiked protein itself that causes the virus to spread so easily but other proteins.

BU researchers say identifying those proteins will help better diagnose and treat COVID.

The study caught the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which helps fund BU's research, off guard. But the university said the research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee, which consists of scientists and members of the local community, and that the Boston Public Health Commission had also approved the research.

“Ultimately, this research will provide a public benefit, by leading to better, targeted therapeutic interventions to help fight against future pandemics," the university's statement said.
 
Apples and Oranges lol. Let’s make a new modified reason to accidentally leak out so we can get the same idiots to get another shot $$$$
Better yet, how many nerds are absolutely nuts? Remember one of them mailing Anthrax just because.
Think the Enquirer or Post is more spot on.
 
Apples and Oranges lol. Let’s make a new modified reason to accidentally leak out so we can get the same idiots to get another shot $$$$
Better yet, how many nerds are absolutely nuts? Remember one of them mailing Anthrax just because.
Think the Enquirer or Post is more spot on.
Here, read this and maybe you can learn how some practice safe virological research and why this NY Post article was Shakespearean in scope, Much Ado About Nothing...

Gain of Function? Not So Fast.​


https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/gain-function-not-so-fast

It's been a little while since I wrote about coronaviruses per se, but some recent news (and the coverage of it, especially) prompts today's post. I'm talking about the preprint out of a Boston University research group which is being described by many as "irresponsible gain-of-function" research. I think that that's not a good characterization of it, and I think that language is likely just to scare or enrage a lot of people who don't know much about viruses or virus research. On the other side of the coverage, here's one of the best takes on it I've seen, predictably from Helen Branswell at Stat, who's been doing a great job on this sort of thing through the whole pandemic.

So here are the general details of the story: the BU group (at the university's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories) created a chimeric virus, taking an "original" strain from Wuhan and putting in a current Omicron-type spike protein (a BA1, to be specific). The Omicron strains have not only that version of the spike, but numerous other mutations throughout their sequence, so this is an experiment to see how much of the differences in the early virus strains and the current ones are due to just changes in the spike itself. Recall that the spike protein is the part of the virus that recognizes human cells to infect, specifically the human ACE2 surface protein, and that it's especially the "tip" of that protein (the receptor binding domain or RBD) that is at the business end of that process. And also recall that infectious viruses in general have human cell-surface proteins that they've evolved to recognize and use as leverage to move their contents across the cell membrane and start the infection cycle. There's nothing particularly remarkable about ACE2 or the fact that the current coronavirus strains use it or that they use such a mechanism - there's a whole list of such human proteins that viruses have stumbled onto over the last few hundred million years or so and have managed to exploit.

This research was partially funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), a part of the NIH, and the NIAID itself is not happy that they first learned of this work when the preprint came out. They claim that the grant application itself does not mention this experiment, but unfortunately I don't think any of us have seen it to know what it says or doesn't say or at what level of detail. It's important to realizes that this doesn't mean that this work was "illegal" or "unauthorized", either (although there's a lot of loose language like that being thrown around). As you can see from the Stat article linked above, about all the NIAID can say is that they wish the BU team would have informed them. The agency's granting policy is that work that could produce "enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential" needs to be evaluated by a committee doing a risk/benefit analysis and studying the proposed research plan. The NIAID is not saying that this work produced such a pathogen, or that it would have caused such a committee to be convened at all, just that they would have wanted to decide whether it warranted that level of examination or not. Meanwhile, the research was approved by BU's own biosafety review process and by the Boston Public Health Commission, so it's not like anyone who saw the proposed experiment would have immediately hit some sort of alarm button.

So what did the team find? Did they make a more dangerous version of the coronavirus? No. In fact, contrary to many of the people who are spouting off on this on social media, the new chimeric strain was less dangerous by comparison in animal tests. Some readers may have seen the figure of 80% of the mice exposed to the chimeric virus dying (because that one is sometimes passed around in ALL CAPS, it can be hard to miss). But before jumping out of your chair, consider that when these mice were exposed to the original Wuhan coronavirus that 100% of them died. This would also be a good time to mention that "exposed", in this experiment, means "large dose sprayed directly up their noses", not wafting around in the cage like some simulation of a mouse dinner party. And as another real virologist (Marion Koopmans of the Netherlands) notes from the data in the preprint, the chimeric virus actually had lower ability to replicate deep in the lung tissue, which may be some of the reason that it was less virulent than the ancestral strain.

Here's a good Twitter thread by a real virologist, Florian Krammer at Mount Sinai. He points out that the Omicron strains of the coronavirus are much less pathogenic in the mouse model than the originals, and that's what this chimeric strain showed as well: when these mice are exposed to the actual Omicron BA1 strain, they are not killed off by it at all. The BU experiment was trying to see if this weakening of Omicron in the mice was due to changes in the spike protein, and the answer is that that can't be the whole answer. The chimeric virus did get weaker than the original strain, but it didn't just drop down to mouse-nonlethal like a real Omicron strain would. So the majority of the Omicron-weakening effect in mice has to be coming from mutations in other parts of the virus.

And here's another discussion from a real virologist, Stuart Neil at King's College, London. He emphasizes that this work was done not in just plain mice, but in an inbred mutated strain, K18-huACE2. That name means that the mice are expressing the human ACE2 protein (because the coronavirus doesn't really recognize the native mouse ACE2), and that this introduced protein is being expressed via the Keratin 18 promoter. If you're not a molecular biologist, all that means is that when you're getting some organism to produce a protein that's not in its own genome, you need to put some signaling sequences in as well when you splice in this new gene, to get the cellular machinery to pay attention and actually read off your new sequence instead of just ignoring it. The key thing here is that the K18 promoter makes sure that the human ACE2 protein is expressed strongly in pretty much all epithelial tissue, very much including the lining of the lungs. These mice are loaded with the stuff compared to humans - they have much wider and stronger expression of ACE2 than we do, so they are completely set up to be hit by the coronavirus. They are an animal model, in other words, not a direct reflection of the real world - in the real world, mice don't get sick from SARS-Cov-2. You will note, for example, that as the early strains of the coronavirus went into the human population that we did not see a 100% mortality rate like these transgenic mice did. The Black Death itself didn't hit 100%, even under medieval public health conditions. You build animal models like this to get fast, solid comparisons between mouse experiments, not to take the numbers from them and think that they will directly translate to human disease.

But what if? What if this chimeric strain turned out to be more lethal than expected in the human population? What happens if you take an older strain of the virus and swap in the Omicron-level spike; doesn't that have the potential for trouble? Well, we've already seen a "natural experiment" like that, as Florian Krammer points out. There was a strain back in March called XD, which was a Delta that had the Omicron spike protein in it (via recombination). XD did not take off in the human population and did not seem to be more of a problem than the other strains, which is why you've probably never heard of it. That recombination domain-switching process very likely takes place in cases of infection with two viral strains at once. The various sequences can get swapped around under these circumstances while things are replicating and reassembling in the same cells, and you'd overall rather not see much of that, because it just gives the virus more lottery tickets to play with.

So this was not a gain-of-function experiment, and it did not appear to make a more dangerous virus. It was approved by review committees, and it was done in a BSL3 lab facility (as any work with the pandemic coronaviruses should be!) Where things have gone wrong here is (as mentioned above) that the NIAID folks would like to know about such experiments beforehand, and to start from a sheer practical standpoint you don't want to irritate people who are providing some of your funding. But the larger problem is the way that this was rolled out. I don't think that this group through through the way that coronavirus news gets handed around in this day and age. There are extremely strong and loud opinions out there, and some of those are held by people who cannot be bothered to read the original paper. Hell, let's stop being polite about it: some of the loudest ones are held by people who are frankly unable to understand the original papers at all. So this is what happens. Rumor and misinformation is (as usual) lapping around the world while the truth is still looking for its shoes. I realize that this post falls into that category, but I felt like I needed to write it anyway. Calm down.
 
Last edited:
Predictable, but not to this extent...

Whites are now more likely to die from covid than Blacks. Here’s why the pandemic shifted.

pressherald.com/2022/10/19/whites-now-more-likely-to-die-from-covid-than-blacks-why-the-pandemic-shifted/

By Akilah Johnson and Dan Keating October 20, 2022

SOMERVILLE, Tenn. — Skill Wilson had amassed more than three decades of knowledge as a paramedic, first in Memphis and then in Fayette County. Two places that felt like night and day.

With only five ambulances in the county and the nearest hospital as much as 45 minutes away, Skill relished the clinical know-how necessary to work in a rural setting. Doing things like sedating patients to insert tubes into their airways.

But when it came to covid-19, despite more than 1 million deaths nationwide, Skill and his family felt their small town on the central-eastern side of Fayette County, with its fields of grazing cattle and rows of cotton and fewer than 200 covid deaths since the start of the pandemic, was a cocoon against the raging health emergency.

“It was a lot easier to stay away from others,” his widow, Hollie Wilson, said of the largely White and predominantly conservative county of about 42,000 residents. “Less people. Less chance of exposure.”
Covid seemed like other people’s problems – until it wasn’t.

The imbalance in death rates among the nation’s racial and ethnic groups has been a defining part of the pandemic since the start. To see the pattern, The Washington Post analyzed every death during more than two years of the pandemic. Early in the crisis, the differing covid threat was evident in places such as Memphis and Fayette County. Deaths were concentrated in dense urban areas, where Black people died at several times the rate of White people.

“I don’t want to say that we weren’t worried about it, but we weren’t,” said Hollie, who described her 59-year-old husband as someone who “never took a pill.” After a while, “you kind of slack off on some things,” she said.

Over time, the gap in deaths widened and narrowed but never disappeared – until mid-October 2021, when the nation’s pattern of covid mortality changed, with the rate of death among White Americans sometimes eclipsing other groups.

A Post analysis of covid death data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from April 2020 through this summer found the racial disparity vanished at the end of last year, becoming roughly equal. And at times during that same period, the overall age–adjusted death rate for White people slightly surpassed that of Black and Latino people.

The nature of the virus makes the elderly and people with underlying health conditions – including hypertension, diabetes and obesity, all of which beset Black people at higher rates and earlier in life than White people – particularly vulnerable to severe illness and death.

That wasn’t Skill.

The virus also attacks unvaccinated adults – who polls show are more likely to be Republicans – with a ferocity that puts them at a much higher risk of infection and death.

That was Skill.

He joined the choir of critics opposing vaccination requirements, his rants in front of the television eventually wearing on Hollie, who, even if she agreed, grew tired of listening and declared their home “covid-talk free.”

So, she said, Skill commiserated with like-minded people in Facebook groups and on Parler and Rumble, the largely unmoderated social networking platforms popular with conservatives.

“We’re Republicans, and 100% believe that it’s each individual’s choice – their freedom” when it comes to getting a coronavirus shot, Hollie said in January. “We decided to err on the side of not doing it and accept the consequences. And now, here we are in the middle of planning the funeral.”

Capt. Julian Greaves Wilson Jr., known to everybody as Skill, died of covid Jan. 23, a month after becoming infected with the coronavirus. He fell ill not long after transporting a covid patient to the hospital. At the time he died, infection rates in Fayette County had soared to 40.5% among people taking coronavirus tests.

‘A DIFFERENT CALCULUS’
When the coronavirus appeared in the United States, it did what airborne viruses do – latched onto cells in people’s respiratory tract, evaded innate immune responses and multiplied. The pathogen, free of politics or ideology, had a diverse reservoir of hosts and found fertile pathways for growth in the inequalities born from centuries of racial animus and class resentments.

Unequal exposure, unequal spread, unequal vulnerability and unequal treatment concentrated harm in communities that needed protection the most yet had the least. Cumulatively, Black, Latino and Native American people are 60 % more likely to die of covid.

But as the pandemic progressed, the damage done by the virus broadened, and the toxicity of modern-day politics came to the fore.
virus-deathdata-51f762d6-5016-11ed-9b9f-2f3e226d3a8a-750x500.jpeg

The message was unmistakable outside a business in Reagan, Tenn., on June 6, 2022. Brandon Dill/The Washington Post

The Post analysis revealed the changing pattern in covid deaths. At the start of the pandemic, Black people were more than three times as likely to die of covid as their White peers. But as 2020 progressed, the death rates narrowed – but not because fewer Black people were dying. White people began dying at increasingly unimaginable numbers, too, the Post analysis found.

In summer 2021, the nation saw some of the pandemic’s lowest death rates, as vaccines, shoring up the body’s immune response, became widely available.

Then came the delta variant. The virus mutated, able to spread among the vaccinated. As it did, an erosion of trust in government and in medicine – in any institution, really – slowed vaccination rates, stymieing the protection afforded by vaccines against severe illness and death.

After delta’s peak in September 2021, the racial differences in covid deaths started eroding. The Post analysis found that Black deaths declined, while White deaths never eased, increasing slowly but steadily, until the mortality gap flipped. From the end of October through the end of December, White people died at a higher rate than Black people did, The Post found.

That remained true except for a stretch in winter 2021-2022, when the omicron variant rampaged. The Black death rate jumped above White people’s when the spike in cases and deaths overwhelmed providers in the Northeast, resulting in a bottleneck of testing and treatment.

When the surge subsided, the Black death rate once again dropped below the White rate.

“Usually, when we say a health disparity is disappearing, what we mean is that . . . the worse-off group is getting better,” said Tasleem Padamsee, an assistant professor at Ohio State University who researched vaccine use and was a member of the Ohio Department of Health’s work group on health equity. “We don’t usually mean that the group that had a systematic advantage got worse.”

That’s exactly what happened as the White death rate surpassed that for Black people, even though Black Americans routinely confront stress so corrosive it causes them to age quicker, become sicker and die younger.

The shift in covid death rates “has vastly different implications for public health interventions,” said Nancy Krieger, professor of social epidemiology at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Officials must figure out how to connect with “communities who are ideologically opposed to the vaccine” while contending with “the cumulative impact of injustice” on communities of color.

“Think about the fact that everyone who is age 57 and older in this country was born when Jim Crow was legal,” she said. “What that did was intersect with covid-19, meaning that embodied history is part of this pandemic, too.”

So what contributed to the recent variation in death rates? And why?

The easy explanation is that it reflects the choices of Republicans not to be vaccinated, but the reasons go deeper. The Post interviewed historians and researchers who study the effects of White racial politics and social inequality on health, spoke with relatives and friends of those lost to covid, and compiled data from federal databases and academic studies.

Many Republicans decided they would rather roll the dice with their health than follow public health guidance – even when provided by President Donald Trump, who was booed after saying he had been vaccinated and boosted.

Researchers at Ohio State found Black and White people were about equally reluctant to get the coronavirus vaccine when it first became available, but Black people overcame that hesitancy faster. They came to the realization sooner that vaccines were necessary to protect themselves and their communities, Padamsee said.

As public health efforts to contain the virus were curtailed, the pool of those most at risk of becoming casualties widened. The No. 1 cause of death for 45-to-54-year-olds in 2021 was covid, according to federal researchers.

After it became clear that communities of color were being disproportionately affected, racial equity started to become the parlance of the pandemic, in words and deeds. As it did, vaccine access and acceptance within communities of color grew – and so did the belief among some White conservatives, who form the core of the Republican base, that vaccine requirements and mask mandates infringe on personal liberties.

“Getting to make this decision for themselves has primacy over what the vaccine could do for them,” said Lisa R. Pruitt, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who is an expert in social inequality and the urban-rural divide. “They’re making a different calculus.”

It’s a calculation informed by the lore around self-sufficiency, she said, a fatalistic acceptance that hardships happen in life and a sense of defiance that has come to define the modern conservative movement’s antipathy toward bureaucrats and technocrats.

“I didn’t think that that polarization would transfer over to a pandemic,” Pruitt said.
It did.

A lifesaving vaccine and droplet-blocking masks became ideological Rorschach tests.

The impulse to frame the eradication of infectious disease as a matter of personal choice cost the lives of some who, despite taking the coronavirus seriously, were surrounded by enough people that the virus found fertile terrain to sow misery. That’s what happened in northern Illinois, where a father watched his 40-year-old son succumb to covid-19.

For Robert Boam, the increase in White deaths is politics brought to bear on the body of his son, though he’s reluctant “to get into the politics of it all, but it all goes back to that.”

Brian Boam was a PE teacher at an elementary school in suburban Chicago. On Christmas Eve, the entire family gathered at the elder Boam’s home in an Illinois town where the first Lincoln-Douglas debate was held. Brian Boam was there with his 10-year-old daughter and 6-year-old son.

Robert Boam said his son had survived covid the year before, so “we got on his butt to get that booster shot when he was here for Christmas.” And he did – but got sick again, the 73-year-old said. “Being vaccinated, and all that, and getting covid again kind of bummed him out.”

Just after the new year, Brian Boam, who was hypertensive, went to a hospital feverish and vomiting. It took 10 hours to be seen and even longer for a bed to become available. As he waited, he sent what would be his last text message to his parents. Thanks for all you do. I love you.

He went into cardiac arrest in the emergency room and was transferred to Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, one of the nation’s top academic hospitals. There, his family hoped he would be healed, but his organs began to fail. He died Jan. 8.

“The thing that gets me is the people who still don’t believe it’s serious or even real, but when they get sick, they run to the hospital,” Robert Boam said. “You’re taking away from heart attack patients and stroke patients.”

The pandemic, he said, “should’ve been taken seriously from the very beginning, and it wasn’t. It was denied. It was downplayed. And it all goes back to one person, as far as I’m concerned.”

Asked who that was, Boam would say only: “I’ll give you three guesses. The first two don’t count.”.

Had to clip article, too long to post entire thing...

... METHODOLOGY
The Post applied the standard technique used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to calculate age-adjusted covid death rates by race using the CDC’s provisional covid death data that includes race, ethnicity, age and date of death. Under that procedure, The Post calculated death rates for age groups by dividing the number of deaths by the population in that age group. The Post then used a standardized age distribution to create an overall rate for each race-ethnicity group.

Age-adjusted rates are especially necessary for understanding covid deaths because the majority of people killed by covid are age 75 or older, even though that group represents less than 9% of the U.S. population. Additionally, more than 90% of covid deaths are in people age 50 and older.

The covid death age pattern is important in reviewing deaths by race because White people are disproportionately older. More than 40% of White people are age 50 or older, but less than 30% of Black people are in those older age groups. Hispanics are even younger, with less than 25% age 50 or older.

The age-adjusted rates offset that difference in age distribution to compare deaths as if the races or ethnic groups had the same age distribution.

Whites, Blacks, Asians, American Indians and Alaskan Natives are non-Hispanic. Hispanics are of any race, so the racial groups and the Hispanic groups do not overlap.

For maps, The Post calculated age-adjusted covid death rates for each race in each state over the course of the pandemic using provisional covid death data by state.
 
So I here study’s out of UK are showing the mortality rate in those with three shots is now higher then those with none.

Also seen the CDC has admitted these shots never stopped either catching or transmitting the virus and new it all along.

Got to suck knowing all these peeps have (ADE). I’m shedding a tear right now like the Indian in the pollution commercial. NOT!
 
I stated summer 2021 that these C***S****** would be coming for the kids...now they are.
Most state Health Dept's will blindly follow CDC guidelines, and in turn the public school district boards.
We've crossed the rubicon here. Its about to go hot.

The beauty of this: the Big Pharma company's now have blanket immunity with these vaccines outside the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) since it is on the official schedule.

We'll see what the Catholic Diocese has to say in this regard. Maybe my daughter will be spared the clot shot at Catholic School. If not...out of state we go.

Article here, with about 2100 comments. Good read so many are up in arms.

 
I stated summer 2021 that these C***S****** would be coming for the kids...now they are.
Most state Health Dept's will blindly follow CDC guidelines, and in turn the public school district boards.
We've crossed the rubicon here. Its about to go hot.

The beauty of this: the Big Pharma company's now have blanket immunity with these vaccines outside the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) since it is on the official schedule.

We'll see what the Catholic Diocese has to say in this regard. Maybe my daughter will be spared the clot shot at Catholic School. If not...out of state we go.

Article here, with about 2100 comments. Good read so many are up in arms.

Well now you can have some empathy for others who are considering where they should live based on another decision which gives the states the decision rights...
 
Last edited:

In a rare moment, Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel admitted that COVID is akin to a seasonal flu and that only older people and those who have compromised immune systems need to get vaccinated.




Speaking at a finance conference Monday, Bancel noted “I think it’s going to be like the flu. If you’re a 25-year-old, do you need an annual booster every year if you’re healthy?”

“You might want to… but I think it’s going to be similar to flu where it’s going to be people at high-risk, people above 50 years of age, people with comorbidities, people with cancer and other conditions, people with transplants,” the Moderna head added.
 

Alas, if there’s one revelation that could shake the COVIDians out of their coma, it’s this: a Pfizer executive under questioning in the European Parliament, recently admitted the awful truth: viral transmission was not tested in Pfizer trials.

Dutch MEP Rob Roos: “Was the Pfizer Covid vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market? If not, please say it clearly. If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?

Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets: “Regarding the question around, um, did we know about stopping the immunisation [sic] before it entered the market? No, heh. Uh, these, um, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market, and from that point of view we had to do everything at risk.”

Straight from the horse’s mouth. No prevarication or alternative explanation is possible. No amount of spin can put this genie back in the bottle.

“Moving at the speed of The Science©,” as the executive put it, Pfizer skipped the whole transmission aspect of clinical study, presumably because the company knew that their product didn’t work. Then it deployed its minions like Warlord Fauci and Dark Brandon to lie to the whole world about it.

“You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”
-Joe Biden, July 21, 2021


“Vaccianted people do not get sick… do not spread the virus.”
-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, March 29, 2021
“When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe they will not be infected.”
-NIAID Director Anthony Fauci May 17, 2021
Damnable lies, each and every one.

The “vaccine hesitant,” or “anti-vaxxers” as they were less charitably known at times, were castigated as “antisocial” knuckle-dragging monsters who were going to kill their grandmothers.

The whole justification for the vaccine mandates and the vaccine passports, in fact, was the “social responsibility” angle, premised on the now-disproven claim that the vaxxes stopped transmission.



To summarize: Pfizer bypassed basic testing protocols that every other vaccine in history has undergone, then manipulated the public with existential terror into taking its product based on false claims of stopping transmission with no evidence whatsoever.

That’s how The Science© works.

—————-

As an aside, here’s a more fundamental question, applicable in a broad range of contexts beyond COVID: why on Earth would anyone seriously take health advice from such a creature as this:

0000000000000000000000000000000-300x122.png


Janine Small, Pfizer’s president of international developed markets

Or this:

000000000000000000000000000000000000000-240x300.jpg


Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Rachel L. Levine

These are not healthy people in any sense of the word – physically, mentally, or spiritually. They have no moral authority to condescend to you about what you should or shouldn’t be doing to protect your personal health.
 

False claim that CDC would require COVID vaccines for kids goes viral​


By The Washington PostUpdated October 20, 2022 1:41 pm
On Tuesday morning, a Fox News contributor claimed on Twitter that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was set to mandate that schoolchildren get coronavirus vaccines. By Tuesday evening, the claim was being repeated by the nation's most popular cable news show, and had been amplified to millions more on social media online.
"The CDC is about to add the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school," host Tucker Carlson tweeted, sharing a segment from his show that has been viewed more than 1.5 million times online.
But the claim was wrong: The CDC cannot mandate that schoolchildren receive vaccines, a decision left up to states and jurisdictions, the agency and multiple public health officials said. The initial tweet by Nicole Saphier, a radiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also misconstrued a planned meeting of CDC advisers, who voted Wednesday to add coronavirus vaccines to the federal Vaccines for Children program, a safety-net program that offers the shots at no cost. A separate meeting set for Thursday would address the agency's immunization schedule for children.

Public health experts say there is a legitimate debate over whether schoolchildren should be required to be vaccinated against coronavirus -- but the incendiary and erroneous claim by the Fox News personalities is the latest example of how critics can twist the facts about CDC and the coronavirus, potentially contributing to lower vaccination rates, fading trust in federal health officials and other consequences for public health.
"This is an all new level of dangerous misinformation," Jerome Adams, who served as U.S. Surgeon General during the Trump administration and as Indiana's top health official, wrote in a text message to The Washington Post. "It could both harm kids (by derailing the VFC program, which helps disadvantaged children access vaccines) and endanger health officials (due to angry misinformed parents). We need to be able to have honest conversations about pros and cons of vaccinating children, without resorting to blatant misinformation."

The episode also illustrates how health care misinformation can rapidly take hold, particularly around the coronavirus vaccine and fueled by many Americans' frustrations and confusion with pandemic policies. But public health experts often feel stymied in their response, uncertain when to engage with false claims spreading virally. And when officials do weigh in, they are often constrained by their more deliberate, sometimes bureaucratic processes.
"I've been doing vaccine work for more than two decades. And what I've seen, thanks to social media, misinformation and disinformation can spread so much more quickly now," said Julie Morita, executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Chicago's former public health commissioner. "There's no quick fix for this."
While some outspoken individuals, such as Kavita Patel, a physician and former Obama administration official, took to Twitter Tuesday evening criticizing the false claims and seeking to rebut them point-by-point, federal officials have been more muted in their response. In interviews on Tuesday evening, several administration officials said they had no plans to engage with the false claims, worried about amplifying them. But by Wednesday morning, the administration's calculation had changed, following Carlson's segment, amid mounting outrage toward federal health officials as vaccine critics seized on the wrongly reported claim that CDC was set to mandate the shots for schoolchildren.
"Thanks to @GovRonDeSantis, COVID mandates are NOT allowed in FL, NOT pushed into schools, & I continue to recommend against them for healthy kids," Joseph Ladapo, Florida's surgeon general, wrote on Twitter.
CDC took to Twitter around noon Wednesday, quoting Carlson's tweet and noting that its independent vaccine advisory committee would vote Thursday "on an updated childhood immunization schedule." The tweet also said: "States establish vaccine requirements for schoolchildren, not ACIP or CDC," and linked to a page that explains state vaccine requirements.

The CDC's response drew criticism from public health experts, who said the agency did not explicitly rebuff Carlson's claim or speak in plain language. Two administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment said they were uncomfortable that CDC -- by quoting Carlson's tweet -- had inadvertently amplified the falsehoods in his video.
Meanwhile, Saphier's original tweet was still posted Wednesday evening and had been retweeted more than 2,400 times as of 6 p.m. Asked about Saphier's tweet, Fox News pointed to a second tweet she sent, more than 9 hours later, that offered context that states did not always follow CDC's recommendations. That tweet had been retweeted 55 times. Saphier also appeared in a Fox News segment on Wednesday afternoon, clarifying her comments but reiterating her criticism that the children's vaccines needed further study.
Memorial Sloan Kettering said that Saphier did not speak for the institution.
In a statement Wednesday, CDC said the vaccine panel will be updating its 2023 childhood and adult immunization schedules, including whether to add approved or authorized coronavirus vaccines, as guidance to health care providers.
"It's important to note that there are no changes in COVID-19 vaccine policy, and this action would simply help streamline clinical guidance for health care providers by including all currently licensed, authorized and routinely recommended vaccines in one document," CDC spokesperson Kristen Nordlund said in an email.

The revised immunization schedules would not take effect until January 2023. Early next year is also when the federal government will no longer provide the vaccines free, federal health officials have said. The practical impact of including vaccines on the CDC's recommended immunization list means they are typically covered by insurance.
The updated schedule also "is the one place everyone can look to see exactly what all the recommendations are for all vaccines for all ages," said James Campbell, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and vice chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on infectious diseases, who said the color-coded document is an essential tool for busy clinicians.
Public health experts noted that recommendations issued by the CDC's advisory panel do not necessarily translate to state-level mandates. For instance, few states have adopted the panel's 2006 recommendation that adolescents be vaccinated against Human Papillomavirus, or HPV.
CDC "has wanted to stay away" from vaccination mandates and consistently defers to local officials, said Jason Schwartz, a Yale University associate professor who specializes in vaccine policy.
Polling has found a significant partisan split in perceptions of the CDC and other agencies. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats say they rate officials at the CDC and other public health agencies positively, versus just one-third of Republicans who do so, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in September.

"This split is going to make it harder to get Republicans to take future Covid variant vaccines," said Robert Blendon, a longtime Harvard University pollster.
Health care leaders also said the episode underscored the challenge of informing the public about contentious public health issues. Drew Altman, head of the nonpartisan think tank Kaiser Family Foundation, said his organization was focusing on combating health care misinformation "as our next big thing."
"It just isn't enough for us to be in the business of putting out good information. We have to now also be in the business of countering misinformation and deliberate disinformation, as well," Altman sa
 
As I've said multiple times, there is no perfect vaccine so all this is true for any and all current vaccines. It's all a matter of risk analyses whenever a regulatory group decides if the benefit to the community as a whole is worth the risks...
 
and Viking Cruises never asked to see vax cards, tested any passengers etc. etc. although they did require the poor crew to wear masks.
 

False claim that CDC would require COVID vaccines for kids goes viral​


By The Washington PostUpdated October 20, 2022 1:41 pm
On Tuesday morning, a Fox News contributor claimed on Twitter that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was set to mandate that schoolchildren get coronavirus vaccines. By Tuesday evening, the claim was being repeated by the nation's most popular cable news show, and had been amplified to millions more on social media online.
"The CDC is about to add the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school," host Tucker Carlson tweeted, sharing a segment from his show that has been viewed more than 1.5 million times online.
But the claim was wrong: The CDC cannot mandate that schoolchildren receive vaccines, a decision left up to states and jurisdictions, the agency and multiple public health officials said. The initial tweet by Nicole Saphier, a radiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, also misconstrued a planned meeting of CDC advisers, who voted Wednesday to add coronavirus vaccines to the federal Vaccines for Children program, a safety-net program that offers the shots at no cost. A separate meeting set for Thursday would address the agency's immunization schedule for children.

Public health experts say there is a legitimate debate over whether schoolchildren should be required to be vaccinated against coronavirus -- but the incendiary and erroneous claim by the Fox News personalities is the latest example of how critics can twist the facts about CDC and the coronavirus, potentially contributing to lower vaccination rates, fading trust in federal health officials and other consequences for public health.
"This is an all new level of dangerous misinformation," Jerome Adams, who served as U.S. Surgeon General during the Trump administration and as Indiana's top health official, wrote in a text message to The Washington Post. "It could both harm kids (by derailing the VFC program, which helps disadvantaged children access vaccines) and endanger health officials (due to angry misinformed parents). We need to be able to have honest conversations about pros and cons of vaccinating children, without resorting to blatant misinformation."

The episode also illustrates how health care misinformation can rapidly take hold, particularly around the coronavirus vaccine and fueled by many Americans' frustrations and confusion with pandemic policies. But public health experts often feel stymied in their response, uncertain when to engage with false claims spreading virally. And when officials do weigh in, they are often constrained by their more deliberate, sometimes bureaucratic processes.
"I've been doing vaccine work for more than two decades. And what I've seen, thanks to social media, misinformation and disinformation can spread so much more quickly now," said Julie Morita, executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Chicago's former public health commissioner. "There's no quick fix for this."
While some outspoken individuals, such as Kavita Patel, a physician and former Obama administration official, took to Twitter Tuesday evening criticizing the false claims and seeking to rebut them point-by-point, federal officials have been more muted in their response. In interviews on Tuesday evening, several administration officials said they had no plans to engage with the false claims, worried about amplifying them. But by Wednesday morning, the administration's calculation had changed, following Carlson's segment, amid mounting outrage toward federal health officials as vaccine critics seized on the wrongly reported claim that CDC was set to mandate the shots for schoolchildren.
"Thanks to @GovRonDeSantis, COVID mandates are NOT allowed in FL, NOT pushed into schools, & I continue to recommend against them for healthy kids," Joseph Ladapo, Florida's surgeon general, wrote on Twitter.
CDC took to Twitter around noon Wednesday, quoting Carlson's tweet and noting that its independent vaccine advisory committee would vote Thursday "on an updated childhood immunization schedule." The tweet also said: "States establish vaccine requirements for schoolchildren, not ACIP or CDC," and linked to a page that explains state vaccine requirements.

The CDC's response drew criticism from public health experts, who said the agency did not explicitly rebuff Carlson's claim or speak in plain language. Two administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment said they were uncomfortable that CDC -- by quoting Carlson's tweet -- had inadvertently amplified the falsehoods in his video.
Meanwhile, Saphier's original tweet was still posted Wednesday evening and had been retweeted more than 2,400 times as of 6 p.m. Asked about Saphier's tweet, Fox News pointed to a second tweet she sent, more than 9 hours later, that offered context that states did not always follow CDC's recommendations. That tweet had been retweeted 55 times. Saphier also appeared in a Fox News segment on Wednesday afternoon, clarifying her comments but reiterating her criticism that the children's vaccines needed further study.
Memorial Sloan Kettering said that Saphier did not speak for the institution.
In a statement Wednesday, CDC said the vaccine panel will be updating its 2023 childhood and adult immunization schedules, including whether to add approved or authorized coronavirus vaccines, as guidance to health care providers.
"It's important to note that there are no changes in COVID-19 vaccine policy, and this action would simply help streamline clinical guidance for health care providers by including all currently licensed, authorized and routinely recommended vaccines in one document," CDC spokesperson Kristen Nordlund said in an email.

The revised immunization schedules would not take effect until January 2023. Early next year is also when the federal government will no longer provide the vaccines free, federal health officials have said. The practical impact of including vaccines on the CDC's recommended immunization list means they are typically covered by insurance.
The updated schedule also "is the one place everyone can look to see exactly what all the recommendations are for all vaccines for all ages," said James Campbell, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Maryland School of Medicine and vice chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics committee on infectious diseases, who said the color-coded document is an essential tool for busy clinicians.
Public health experts noted that recommendations issued by the CDC's advisory panel do not necessarily translate to state-level mandates. For instance, few states have adopted the panel's 2006 recommendation that adolescents be vaccinated against Human Papillomavirus, or HPV.
CDC "has wanted to stay away" from vaccination mandates and consistently defers to local officials, said Jason Schwartz, a Yale University associate professor who specializes in vaccine policy.
Polling has found a significant partisan split in perceptions of the CDC and other agencies. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats say they rate officials at the CDC and other public health agencies positively, versus just one-third of Republicans who do so, according to a Pew Research poll conducted in September.

"This split is going to make it harder to get Republicans to take future Covid variant vaccines," said Robert Blendon, a longtime Harvard University pollster.
Health care leaders also said the episode underscored the challenge of informing the public about contentious public health issues. Drew Altman, head of the nonpartisan think tank Kaiser Family Foundation, said his organization was focusing on combating health care misinformation "as our next big thing."
"It just isn't enough for us to be in the business of putting out good information. We have to now also be in the business of countering misinformation and deliberate disinformation, as well," Altman sa
no shit sherlock. CDC sets a guideline/reco...state health depts blindly follow...then school district has no choice.....

why that even need to be fact checked for the sheeple is cause they are sheep

CDC: Don't blame us, we only make recommendations, each health dept and school can make their own decisions. Take it up with them.

Schools: Don't blame us, we're just following the CDC's recommendations. Take it up with them.
 
But the real deal with the CDC reco is a follows:
1: Control of the sheep
2: Shielding Big Pharma from lawsuits and ensuring their profits
3: CDC is totally compromised and owned by big pharma

Once on the CDC's list of recommended childhood vaccines the product has immunity from lawsuits forever.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-1 to 300aa-34) was signed into law by United States President Ronald Reagan as part of a larger health bill on November 14, 1986. NCVIA's purpose was to eliminate the potential financial liability of vaccine manufacturers due to vaccine injury claims[1] to ensure a stable market supply of vaccines, and to provide cost-effective arbitration for vaccine injury claims.[2] Under the NCVIA, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) was created to provide a federal no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries or death by establishing a claim procedure involving the United States Court of Federal Claims and special masters.[1][3]
 
Sheep. Baaaaaah. More like lemmings. I follow the LAW. Fishing, firearms, stop signs. Recommendations ? The lemmings need to get hold of a Webster's.
 
As I've said multiple times, there is no perfect vaccine so all this is true for any and all current vaccines. It's all a matter of risk analyses whenever a regulatory group decides if the benefit to the community as a whole is worth the risks...
Another Fauci.
 
📱 Fish Smarter with the NYAngler App!
Launch Now

Members online

Fishing Reports

Latest articles

Back
Top