Miscarriages, Fauci, and the COVID shot
I think Fauci was a plague on this country. He made things up regarding masks and distances, he promoted shutdowns that harmed people, and he was a self-aggrandizing narcissist.
And yet I will be defending him at least somewhat on the current topic, that of miscarriages and the COVID shot. The story:
Dr. Anthony Fauci privately raised concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine could “theoretically” be linked to miscarriages in expectant mothers, despite having publicly insisted there were “no red flags” for pregnant women.
“I asked around a bit more and another issue came up that you need to be aware of,” wrote Fauci in a Jan. 25, 2021, text exchange with then-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.
“Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester,” added the then-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director.
So, there was a theoretical risk, but no data. Recall that there was the same or worse theoretical risk from getting COVID itself.
More:
Days later, on Feb. 3, Fauci said during a question-and-answer livestream with the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that the FDA “found thus far, and we have to be careful, but thus far no red flags about that, about pregnant women.”
So, what’s a “red flag”? Is it a theoretical risk, or does there need to be actual data saying there’s a higher-than-normal risk after the shot? And to what should the risk be compared – healthy women or women who contract COVID itself? The shot doesn’t prevent COVID, but it did initially ameliorate the most severe symptoms of early strains, and early 2021 involved relatively early strains.
In the end, what we’re really debating here is how to inform the public of a theoretical risk without doing more harm than good. What if Fauci had said this to the public: “We have no data on the shot in pregnant woman, but there’s a theoretical risk that a second dose might precipitate a higher-than-normal number of miscarriages. However, so can getting COVID. So you need to make your decision based on that information or lack thereof”?
That would have been truthful. But since there was no evidence at all one way or another about the shot and miscarriages, would it have been best to say that? Or would it have discouraged pregnant women from getting a shot that, on the whole, might have done more good than harm for them at the time? I don’t have an answer, although I think the truth should have been told anyway.
And in no way do I think the shots should have been mandatory.
As for the actual evidence that later emerged on the topic of the COVID shot and miscarriages, there is no evidence that it increases the rates of miscarriage. Now, if you have come to distrust all science reports on this topic – and I could understand why you might have concluded that – you’ll just shrug that off and believe whatever you want. But that’s not science; that’s belief in anecdotal evidence on the order of “my friend got a COVID shot and a week later she had a miscarriage, therefore the shot caused the miscarriage.” That proves nothing, because miscarriage rates are very high and have been high even without COVID or the shot.
I was open to the idea that COVID shots might exacerbate miscarriages, and I looked and looked for evidence of that, but the overwhelming result of research is that the shots do not raise the miscarriage rates (see this for example, but there are plenty more studies of that type). The evidence on COVID itself is the following:
Pregnant women were initially excluded from the initial COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, as they are from most trials. However, experts have recommended the vaccines for pregnant women since they were first released to the public because of the disproportionate risks this group faces compared to the general population. Pregnant women are at higher risk to experience severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to nonpregnant women, and are at greater risk of needing to be hospitalized, admitted to the intensive care unit, and intubated. COVID-19 is also associated with pregnancy complications such as preterm birth or stillbirth.
Health authorities are supposed to give recommendations that balance the risks. Is full disclosure necessary? I’m in favor of it, but I realize that sometimes the risk/benefit ratio is difficult to process and understand. In the case of COVID, many lies were told and many errors made, increasing the suffering of many people and hurting society as a whole in a myriad of ways. But the miscarriage message turns out to have not been harmful, and compared to all the rest it’s very very minor.
[NOTE: If you’re interested, here’s an article on miscarriage rates in general, which occur in approximately 30% of pregnancies. The rates have been rising year after year at a rate of about 1% per year, but that trend started before COVID or COVID shots.]
They claim (dubiously) that Covid can cause the same exact side effects as the shot. So if you are a previously healthy 35 year old who suffered a stroke after the shot, they’ll just say it was more likely caused by an occult covid infection. The problem is that many people weren’t given the option to roll the dice and deal with covid unvaxxed, they had to get the shot and automatically upped their odds of a catastrophic side effect
Gottenham:
I agree no one should have been forced to take the shot or lose a job.
But the shots didn’t automatically up the odds of a catastrophic side effect. I’ve written a ton of posts on that topic, analyzing the data that people who say that think proves it. It does not (see this, just to take one example). I’m not going to recap the content of those posts here. Suffice to say I’ve covered it extensively and that’s my conclusion.
Thirty-five-year-olds sometimes have strokes, unfortunately. They are not necessarily caused by either the COVID shot OR COVID itself. See the charts here, for example.
I agree that it turned out well (miscarriages did not increase with the first round of shots). I would have strongly preferred the more open statement, as you have outlined.
Did your data include the third trimester
Women miscarriage 82% of the time in the 2nd trimester after getting the second shot
They messed with the data
They are evil
The biggest “tell” regarding their utter perfidy was their grotesque insistence on the IRRELEVANCE of natural immunity, proclaiming instead—majesterially—that “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” for EVERY AGE GROUP and condition…unless one is a Birx or a Newsom, etc.
That, AND viciously prosecuting nurses and other medical workers (and others) who preferred to believe what their lying eyes were seeing on the wards…and hence refused to comply.
File under: “Follow the compliance!”…OR ELSE !!!!
I’ve seen interviews with Fauci apologists to the effect that he did a lot of good for those so afflicted, back in the days of AIDS. I didn’t pay attention to AIDS then, except in the most general current events sense, and I am utterly unqualified to pass judgment now. I am willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that Dr. Fauci was a force for good back in the AIDS days.
People are blends of good and evil, and people’s individual blends can change over time. If the apologists want to focus on good that Dr. Fauci did back them well, go for it, but by the early-to-mid 2020s, it’s an increasingly misdirected focus. There’s no need to wallow yet again in what’s been revealed over the past month or so, and yes, many of us with our eyes, ears, and minds open pretty much knew the unfolding score as it was unfolding, but we need to take a level-headed approach.
In that spirit, I appreciate neo’s post on miscarriages and the covid shots.
I have nothing to say to the apologists: I’ve seen videos, nauseatingly saccharine. Get a grip, people. Was Fauci a Mengele II? Let’s stay away from Godwin’s Law*, shall we? Even if the comparison is apt, I think it’s pretty clichéd rhetoric and not useful at this point, certainly not useful in terms of communicating with those who may be open to communication re Fauci.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
At the start of the pandemic, people were dying at frightening rates, the symptoms were very stubborn, and it was right to be very concerned. VERY concerned. At the risk of getting stoned, muslim style, I’ll even state that then – President Trump was very wrong to underplay covid. Yes, it pretty much turned out to be a sort-of hoax, except “hoax” was a terrible way to lay it out there to the people. It’s more like it was a useful tool, once the lab leak (being *real* here) was fait accompli, and what then transpired was almost certainly deliberate (“you don’t want a crisis to go to waste”), tailor-made to stymie Trump’s program, such as it was.
Meanwhile, it strikes me that something, *demonic* if literal demons are one’s “thing”, got hold of Fauci, and he succumbed. What he was then responsible for doing should not be minimized, which apologists have been doing, much to their discredit. Fauci deserves all the opprobrium that has been showered on him.
I for one am not interested in the People Magazine aspects of the revelations — the self-regard and all that — except as it may inform what happened in terms of public policy. But will our progeny take the right lessons from the affair? I’m not optimistic, but that’s just me, a quasi-professional pessimist of many decades’ standing.
— — — — —
For what it’s worth, I’m totally down with Barry Meislin’s (5:28 pm) remarks, just trying to stay cool-calm-collected about it. And definitely Kate’s (5:20 pm) remark as well.
What do you(Neo) think.is causing the 1% uptick?
Is it connected to the upsurge of autism?
I think Fauci was in leadership when the medical authorities tried to convince the public that we were ALL at great risk of AIDS, when even at the time it was clear that most cases were among gay males and/or drug users.
Given that the shots did not prevent (or even reduce) the chance of getting (or spreading) Covid, it seems to me that the unknown risk regarding miscarriages (and other ill effects) would point against pregnant women getting the shots. I realize I’m using hindsight, but I believe the ineffectiveness of the shots was known pretty early on (say by mid-2021), at least once the Delta variant was prevalent.
Kate (6:15 pm), I believe you’re right. Dr. Fauci had been instrumental in prominent medical matters seemingly forever.
Was it a deliberate overstating of who was susceptible to AIDS, in to reach those who were susceptible but needed shaking up, or was it merely typical media senstionalism (“if it bleeds, it leads”), or both?
But yes, what you’re remembering would have been quite in character for the 2020s-era Fauci with whom we’ve become familiar, a faint harbinger of things to come.
MJR, I believe it was both media sensationalism and deliberate overstatement by the medical authorities. Pointing out that AIDS was primarily a gay/druggie disease would have been discriminatory, you see. We saw the same sort of thing recently with a brief hysteria over monkey pox. A left-wing neighbor of mine was worried about having her grandchildren fly to visit. I told her that the disease was spreading by close contact primarily among the sexually promiscuous and her family could fly safely. I’m not sure she believed me.
Fauci, et al., did the same thing with COVID. It was quite clear, as Neo pointed out early on, that the disease hit hard among the elderly and the immune-compromised. Common sense went begging for a hearing.
if you have come to distrust all science reports on this topic – and I could understand why you might have concluded that – you’ll just shrug that off and believe whatever you want.
They have earned our distrust. Once ALL trust is lost, upon what basis might we ever trust them again? Nor did they just lie to us, they did all they could to discredit anyone who questioned their ‘science’. Even medical experts testifying before Congress about the efficacy of Ivermectin were mocked by Fauci et al. What else but mass murderer do you call people who literally engineer the deaths of so many?
This was not a case of one mistake but a campaign of deceit and they deserve all the calumny we can pour out upon them.
Along with others, Fauci, Walensky and especially NY Gov Cuomo are mass murderers.
My granddaughter miscarried a few weeks after the vax. You will never convince me that that shot didn’t killed my great grand child.
They knew, from the very beginning. The first studies showed an 80% miscarriage rate in the first trimester. It was published in the NEJM, I believe, but by lumping all the pregnant women together, they minimized it.
Dr. James Thorpe exposed it at the time, IIRC.
Naomi Wolf exposed it when she analyzed the Phizer data.
They knew, they knew, they knew.
Not only that–every physician over 40 knew better than to give a unevaluated genetic therapy to pregnant women.
For God’s sake–how could they all do what they did???
Do not grant that man–any of them– any grace, at all.
Fauci committed crimes against humanity, should be charged, tried, and when found guilty, hung on The Mall and his body left til the birds pick his bones clean.
Never again.
Every single thing I knew–they knew. Certainly when I knew it, or earlier.
I had no inside track–I was reading publicly available information.
Instapundit and Alex Berenson were reliable sources.
On August 21, 2021 Fauci wrote that the experimental injections were ineffective at preventing infection, and increased the risk of infection. Berenson got banned from Twitter for doing the same. Data from Israel, Iceland, Ireland and Gibraltar showed that.
No one should have ever taken on the risk of the first boosters.
How many times did I post that here, while people were reporting that their doctors were telling them to get it.
For years afterwards!
There are people STILL getting it.
From doctors.
Parrots–they are parrots, not physicians.
As RFKj labelled Dana Bash.
Parroting guidelines, recommendations–willfully ignoring what was right in front of their eyes; what they knew to be true.
.
The theoretical risk of the virus. Or the given risk of the vaxxxine was known as the spike protein illegally migrated, replicated in the ovaries.
AIDS was primarily a liberal, trans/homo male disease by virtue of fecal transmission. They tried to be equitable and inclusive with claimed congruence (“=”) between cis and trans behavior. They lied. Deja vu.
Fauci was involved in proposing ineffective, expensive treatment. San Francisco kept the trans clubs open. The infection was progressive and the disease became a viable burden for the trans community.
Kate…”Pointing out that AIDS was primarily a gay/druggie disease would have been discriminatory, you see”…true…but also, the higher % of the population was perceived to be at risk of the disease, the greater the research funding was likely to be.
Statistics can be tricky. For example, one can easily demonstrate that the mortality risk amog people watching the 1984 ‘Ghostbusters’ movie is 2X higher than among the watchers of the 2021 movie:
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/is-watching-the-1984-ghostbusters-movie-killing-people-a-statistician-s-perspective
Fauci and the Dems were wrong about nearly everything on Covid.
There needs to be a full court press on the Dems with this issue.
Don’t give Fauci one break or benefit of the doubt.
More really bad evidence is going to come out on this. There will be indictments.
Gain of function research is a war crime. Despite the lies of people doing it, the purpose is to create biological weapons. Fauci and his vile wife are mass murdering war criminals who should be hanged.
Ralph:
Condolences on your loss.
Lee:
You don’t give a link to your assertion about 80%, but I am pretty sure I know where it originates, and it is incorrect. Here’s the explanation:
The study can be found here.
The risk of miscarriage is somewhat greater than normal if a pregnant person contracts COVID, however.
“…Ivermectin…”
Worth remembering, too, that before launching the campaign to ridicule the robust and far cheaper option that was/is Ivermectin, Fauci similarly derided the effectiveness of hydrochloriquine, also a viable treatment, as “anecdotal” and then pushed the idea that HCQ was in fact a fish tank cleaner and was toxic to humans (similar to the official campaign that Ivermectin was a medication effective for deworming horses).
Both campaigns were untruthful and both were intended to deny that 1) there was any existing, viable and considerably cheaper alternative to the vaccines, and 2) that the opponents of “Dr. Science”—IOW those expressing skepticism—were actually trying to get people killed, were prolonging the pandemic and were “enemies of the people”. (Look at what happened to Dr. Scott Atlas et al.)
@ Neo > “miscarriage rates in general, which occur in approximately 30% of pregnancies”
Well, it’s nice to know (sort of) that there is one statistic in which I hit the “normal” mark!
Out of 8 pregnancies, I had 3 miscarriages, about as close to 30% as you can get with integers.
However, I am very glad I didn’t have to make the decision whether or not to get the COVID shot while pregnant.
@ Kate > “I think Fauci was in leadership when the medical authorities tried to convince the public that we were ALL at great risk of AIDS, when even at the time it was clear that most cases were among gay males and/or drug users.”
In re Fauci and AIDS: I wasn’t aware of him by name at the time, but I knew, and resented, that the medical establishment was deliberately trying to obscure the reality that it was overwhelmingly a disease of a small and well-defined subset of the population.
That alone should have made more of us suspicious about the Covid lock-step.
My children’s elementary school at least allowed parents to read the material they were presenting to the kids (unlike today’s “educators” who do everything to keep parents in the dark), and the documentation passed muster (barely) by reason of being somewhat opaque about causes and mostly reassuring about risks — which for 99.99% of children under puberty was zero.
That was purely the result of the hysterical hype of the news media*; they shouldn’t have even known it existed.
(*Some things never change).
Any child actually getting AIDS immediately indicates that some kind of abuse is occurring.
With the caveat about the blood transfusions causing some instances in the early days, but it took far too long for the medicos to figure out that maybe people at risk for HIV shouldn’t be donating blood.
That delay was also IMO part of the “don’t discriminate” protocol.
Sometimes you HAVE to discriminate; that’s what the word means!
I wonder if “the questions” are still on the blood bank forms?
I had to stop donating for medical reasons (aka getting old) a while back.
I had two reasons for not taking the vaxx. One was purely rational. A decade + prior to Covid, I had asked a friend, an ER Room doc, her take on the – newish – vax for chicken pox. My kid’s pediatrician had been pressing me to give it to my kids and I wanted them to go through chicken pox naturally as that would give them lifelong immunity that the vax could not guarantee. Doc friend told me FWIW she never took anything that had not been in general public use for at least 5 years, preferably 7. No matter how rigorous testing is it never quite equals the feedback from widespread use. I knew this to be true not only from personal experience (Fosamax) but also my husband has been involved in FDA testing. And all of us know of drugs that have been released as safe and then recalled as unforeseen effects have become known. I saw no reason why Covid should revise this principle.
The second was Fauci himself. I couldn’t believe it when he showed up in charge! OMG, Fauci, the guy who LIED about AIDS! Him? He’s STILL around? Shouldn’t he have been put out to pasture years ago? Helluva thing, government employment.
You might know someone who is so bad at directions everyone just does the opposite of whatever they say.
Well, that’s Fauci.
More Re: Fauci knowing about pregnancy risk, per his journal entry released by Senator Rand Paul, in March of 2020—eight months before the experimental mRNA injections were cleared by the FDA, Fauci was told by researchers that the lipidnano particles were detected in amniotic fluid.
He knew those shots would be sending spike protein across the placenta to fetal hearts.
I heard the FDA testimony before they were released for use in teenagers, when a long time researcher spoke of her years of finding animals’ germ cells–ovaries and testes–to be liquified at sacrifice after being injected with the mRNA platform, begging the panel to not Ok it for young people. In tears by the end of her testimony.
That was the reason this “miracle” platform had never been released–it had failed for over a decade to get past animal studies.
Only by “fast tracking” the process into humans, skipping the animal studies, could it have been OKd. Thus, Fauci’s choice to lie to Congress as to the true incidence of the disease, inflating it by 100-150%–which was, simply , a “bad flu.” Some thing we deal with at least once a decade.
We knew all we needed to know simply by observing the Diamond Princess. Elderly couples who were confined to same cabin had only the frail expire.
And preventing effective, available, cheap, and almost side effect free–when given in non-cardiotoxic doses–outpatient treatment.
Cleveland Clinic had the data and pre print paper showing something as simple as a serum Vitamin D level would keep you out of the hospital. The USPS could have delivered that to every household in the country.
He is evil. Deeply evil.
No grace.
Crimes against humanity.
Neo, it’s not that data.
It was by looking at the women who were pregnant in the earliest study,
which did NOT want to include pregnant women as subjects, but some slipped in.
If you need to find it to believe me, try searching James Thorp.
Remember one of the drug company CEOs (the heavy set swarthy one) on video saying a a conference they did not classify it as the genetic therapy it is,
as it would never have been accepted?
Remember they changed the definition of vaccine?
Evil, evil, evil.
A very “old fashioned” word; used to strike me as simplistic and primitive.
No longer.
Lee:
Research after research study simply do not bear out any increased miscarriage rate as a result of the COVID shot, and statistics do bear out an increased miscarriage rate from getting COVID.
Many mRNA vaccines are being development and tested presently, and considered very promising.
You don’t provide a link for your 80% claim, which certainly doesn’t enhance the believability of your statements. Interesting, also, that 80% is the same figure as in the flawed interpretation of a study that I explained in my previous comment. You need to provide a link to whatever it is you’re talking about.
As far as Thorpe goes, take a look. People – including doctors – can make any claim they like. But in the case of Thorp the research – and I mean virtually every study – says otherwise. He made claim after claim that were simply incorrect.
Nothing I found about Thorp gave a link to any study such as you describe. I’m not going to waste more time looking for it. If you want to provide it, please do. I also can find absolutely nothing that fits your description of the researcher talking about “liquified” organs as a result of mRNA vaccines. You have given no link for that, either. No one else seems to have seen it or written about it, as far as I can tell.
And as I’ve said in this post and many other times, there were many lies told and errors made by Fauci et al, and they caused damage. But on this particular topic of miscarriages, it seems they were basically truthful. Not everything is a lie.
And here’s the Cleveland Clinic saying the evidence for Vitamin D as treatment for COVID is not strong enough to recommend it. There was indeed some early evidence that it might help, but not a whole lot. Nevertheless, Vitamin D supplementation isn’t a bad idea.
The liars who paint Fauci as worse than he actually was are more accurate than the media which has painted him an Ikon. Fauci backed the funding that produced Covid-19. The biggest beneficiaries thereafter were producers of vaccines. I’m not liking this picture enough to spend time siding with those who want to give the guy a break.
My daughter was in the early months of pregnancy with Jamie the Wonder Grandson when the Covid vaxx was being made available, but we had already see scattered stories on various media sites about women miscarrying after being administered the vaccine. The OB practice which was overseeing her care did offer her the vaccination if she wanted it, but she said “no” and they never brought it up again. I wonder now if the staff and doctors there didn’t already have serious doubts. My daughter would risk nothing that would pose a threat to Jamie, even in utero.
I had always had a bad reaction to the yearly required flu shot when I was on active duty, so once I retired and it wasn’t mandatory – I didn’t get one. In more than twenty years of retirement from the military, I’ve had the flu maybe twice. Blessed with a strong immune system, I assume. When I read the various stories about how the crew passengers of the Diamond Princess were affected, I said to myself, “Ah … no worse than the normal yearly flu; a danger only to the very elderly and those with serious health limitations.” So, I didn’t get the Covid shot – and eventually my daughter and I AND wee Jamie all came down with it anyway. Jamie had the sniffles and a temperature for two days. My daughter and I were sick for about two weeks.
“The liars who paint Fauci as worse than he actually was…”
Is it truly possible to “paint Fauci as worse than he actually was”?
If so, how?
(Or must he be defended because he was a human and therefore fallen creature…even if he, in large part, intentionally created the conditions that screwed over massive numbers of people—and destroyed reputations along with the credibility of his profession—while vastly enriching himself, his cronies and certain select pharmaceuticals?)
File under: “
ForgivePardon them [O “BIDEN”] for they knownotEXACTLY what they do…”It is hardly a unique observation, but I am frankly amazed at how—as a result of their actions, statements, and responses to COVID–with the exception of a few courageous (persecuted and ignored) individuals here and there–seemingly every major institution in our country has managed to discredit itself—our political leaders, members of Congress, various Governors and local elected officials, scientists, assorted medical researchers, our medical schools and universities, supposed “journalists,” TV pundits and talking heads, “experts” of various kinds, physicians, education, and public health leaders and officials—you name it.
Over the recent years, various polls have indicated that our military is the institution which is generally trusted and held in highest regard by our population, but after the number that the Obama and Biden Administrations have done on our military—dismissing serious, experienced military leaders, war fighters, and replacing them with squishy leftists of various stripes and “persuasions,” and DEI hires–perhaps even our military is now also suspect, compromised, and considered less trustworthy than it had been.
My kids were born 78 and 79 my wife would not even take aspirin , I cant imagine why anyone would take an emergency vaccine.
Keith:
Not every expectant mother is as risk aversive as your wife. Imagine that!
I was an early fan of this amazing mRNA technology up until the results started coming out after the roll out. Primarily, that fact that it didn’t stop or even attenuate the spread of COVID much. Fast forwarding to now, I’d say the risk/rewards for it are terrible, on both sides of that ratio.
About statistics and science. It is quite easy, especially with malicious intent, to smear the statistical data out so as to render null results. I don’t know that this is true, but it is a possibility. Take the COVID vax and myocarditis symptoms or related heart attacks. If one looks at the occurrence of such attacks in the general unvaxed population, and compare it to the level of occurrence of attacks, at any time after taking the vax, then you are potentially smearing the data, unless you take into account when the post vax attack occurs.
The spike protein produced by the vax will attack the lining of blood vessels within a time frame of about 1 day to a couple weeks after getting the vax. Is it irrelevant if a potential myocarditis attack occurs in that time frame versus say many months later? I don’t think so. Cause and effect. Does the statistical analysis weight the time frame properly?
______
That the pharma industry has now jumped onto the mRNA vaccine bandwagon is, in my opinion, one of the large negatives of all of this going forward. I have three reasons for believing this. (Yes, it is largely a belief, given the lack of hard scientific knowledge us commoners are privy to.)
1) When the COVID vax was being developed, I initially thought it was a very new technology. It wasn’t. The first animal trials were done in the late ’80’s, and they had developed a full up mRNA rabies vax roughly 20 years prior to covid. Why were none of these developments ever brought to the market?? I really want to know ALL of those reasons, but I’m not foolish enough to waste my time looking for proprietary corporate information.
2) In its current form, all this technology is nanoparticle technology. The stuff they are injecting into you with the Pfizer or Moderna vax is a nanoparticle. The naked spike proteins produced by mRNA process inside your cells are nanoparticles. For reference: The size of a COVID virion is about 110 nm. Other small virions are about that size, although some types are much larger. The size of the spike protein produced by the COVD vax is about 7 nm.
In a billion years of animal evolution, the animal kingdom has never had to cope with biologically active particles this small. The function of membranes in our body is critical in managing a myriad of things that keep us functioning well. An early Japanese study indicated that these naked spike proteins produced by the vax go everywhere in the body. The brain, the spinal column, etc. Like the membranes weren’t blocking them at all.
3) Some have complained that this vax isn’t a vax at all. Well…, I hate getting wrapped up in semantics. However, I would call it a nanoparticle quasi-vaccine. It is a quasi-vaccine because it only targets one of a few active elements of the virus that your immune system could have been stimulated to respond to. It only targets the S-protein, whereas the virus also has the M-protein, the N-protein, and maybe… the whole envelope and the genetic contents of the virus. A real conventional vaccine would have activated a response to all of that. And it would have been about 110 nm in size.
It is impossible to know any of these things to a scientific certainty without a big laboratory and trials behind you, but I would say that the above paragraph is an obvious reason why the COVID vax was not very effective in doing what it was supposed to do. That, and the details of COVID mutations.
TommyJay:
I wrote many posts about many of the issues you raise. I don’t have time to go looking for all of them, but if you do a search on the blog for things like “myocarditis” you’ll find some of them; many go into the details of the research that was done. Here’s a post that lists some on that topic, for example. Here’s another that’s worth reading. Suffice to say that over the years I’ve followed tons of research that supposedly shows the special dangerousness of the COVID shot and none have held up. Not a single one.
I’ve also written somewhere about the history of mRNA vaccines. That might have been in comments, which are harder for me to track than posts. But the gist of it is that some were in development and developing immunizations takes a long time and must be financially worthwhile. For example, they were working on one for ebola but then the outbreak ended and so they dropped it. At present there are many mRNA vaccines in the works. There are some technical problems but none of them are about dangerousness or post-shot complications that are dire.
As you probably know, I’ve never swallowed the CDC line, right from the start. But they are not wrong about everything. And it most definitely doesn’t mean the anti-vaxxers are right about the things they claim.
@ Snow > “perhaps even our military is now also suspect, compromised, and considered less trustworthy than it had been.”
Trump and Hegseth & Co. are reversing all of the Obama/Biden personnel atrocities as fast as they can, by hiring/promoting “serious, experienced military leaders, war fighters,” and replacing the “squishy leftists of various stripes and “persuasions,” and DEI hires–” so it may be that any drop in trust (and there was one, as evidenced by the low recruiting numbers until Trump 47) has been recouped.
Your list of sketchy operatives was very comprehensive, but you still left out the (pre-Trump) CIA, FBI, ATF, DHS, ODNI, and a few we probably don’t know enough about to know how corrupt they are. Even the USPS got into the act with some of their shady election-centered activities (although possibly of isolated offices rather than the whole Agency).
And don’t forget the courts whose activist leftist judges make no bones about weighting the scales of justice so that they lean in the approved direction.
Sadly, there are plenty of anti-Americans still hiding in the bureaucratic tunnels doing their best to hamper the MAGA clean out.
The list of people and agencies conservatives do trust is considerably shorter, and there probably is no consensus about who is on it.
AesopFan–It seems to me that, in order to function as a free and just society adhering to the Rule of Law, and to try to claw our way back to returning to being the “high trust society” we used to be, we need at least a few of the core institutions in our country to have remained relatively honest, fiercely dedicated to adhering the values of our Founders and the Constitution, and to preserving our traditional way of life, and I don’t know if such really exist anymore or, if they do, are now strong, courageous, and influential enough to make any real difference.
@ Aesop Fan: “I wonder if “the questions” are still on the blood bank forms?”
Having given blood recently (in FL), I can confirm those questions are still there; … repeated redundently several times, just to be “doubly extra sure” they get a truthful answer. And of course they test the blood donated before passing it into the system, so if it tests positive, they reject it and inform the donor of that status/ situation.
I don’t recall clearly right now, but there may also have been a statement that knowingly donating infected blood was grounds for some form of criminal indictment.
@ Snow and R2L – thanks for the replies!
Rolling Stone ran a piece on ivermectin which was so obviously bogus it was funny. No way in h the world they didn’t know they were lying. Had to retract it, but I suppose on a net basis they figured more people were fooled than saw the retraction and since their reputation for honesty isn’t all that solid, they had little to lose in that regard. But the point is, they made the effort to mislead and did so on purpose. Because a cheap therapeutic might upset things.