Art Bell was probably a sort of proto-Alex Jones, i.e. a controlled and managed outlet for parapolitical topics and a way to mix up the truth with a hefty dose of misinfo and shitcoating.
Mae Brussell's entire back catalog is easy to find if you're looking for something along these lines without the compromised elements. Dave Emory also has a massive library and is still going strong, doing great work on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in particular. For modern-day parapolitical podcasts there's The Liminalist, Subliminal Jihad, The Farm, Psyop Cinema, and many others.
The newsworthy development and actual change in policy was to pull Moderna for certain demographics. Pfizer has always been recommended for them. Reuters is whitewashing a little with the headline.
> Yes, a lot of laypeople were expecting them to outright prevent infection at much higher rates, but that was never the deal from the start.
It wasn't just laypeople, it's trivial to go back and find prominent public health officials promising that vaccinated people will not transmit the disease, the vaccines will be 100% effective against death, etc. They shouldn't have been saying that given that what you say about the trials is true, but hey, they haven't paid any price for getting it wrong since this whole thing began so why would they now?
In general I have noticed there's this pattern where the public will sometimes be clearly and strongly led to believe a certain thing, but if it later turns out to be false, 100% of the blame is placed on the masses. If there's any rebuke for the officials or institutions which led them into error it's always in the most vague and general terms, with no one ever indicted (or, heaven forbid, punished) by name.
And only to attend school, and until 4 or 5 years ago it was probably very easy to get an exemption. And every one of those vaccines had been in existence and monitored for safety concerns for years before they were ever mandated.
The ellipsis seems to imply something else. Is there anything else or have we enumerated them exhaustively?
I know at least a couple of nurses who were able to get around the flu shot requirements, probably because it was pretty well understood they only reduce transmission marginally at best.
In my state, at least, the restrictions on the tetanus vaccine for school is more restrictive than any covid restriction on public life.
I’m not sure how any of this has to do with using the term “pretext” to describe booster shots. They are a normal and accepted part of public health immunization plans and have been for as long as I’ve been alive. Pretext, at least to me, implies that there is no health reason for boosters and if anything this study suggests the opposite.
A breakthrough infection is just a COVID case in someone who's been vaccinated. In that particular sentence they're just saying that people who developed a breakthrough infection did have a nonzero risk of death, but the vaccines were still fairly protective.
In February if you had said "these vaccines will wane over time and won't prevent infection and transmission" it would have been labeled misinformation.
Same guy in Aug 2021: "Every time that a variant appears in the world, our scientists are getting their hands around it. And they are researching to see if this variant can escape the protection of our vaccine. We haven't identified any yet, but we believe that it is likely that one day, one of them will emerge.". Somewhat confused here, I thought mentioning "variant" and "vaccine" in the same sentence is criminal antivaxxer conspiracy theory misinformation?
The world needs a cheat sheet at https://pfizer.com/covid with a handful of bullet points for correct speak and a handful for criminal misinformation. Even better, also an anonymous form to submit the names, addresses and workplaces of those who fail to internalize the distinction.
I'm not even sarcastic, just dark. I am at a loss at what is the space of not-criminal discourse about covid vaccines. This seems an attempt to make covid vaccines a taboo topic, in which only pre-canned proclamations are permitted, preferably uttered only by people dressed in white labcoats with seven letters after their names. Let's drop the pretenses and give us the plebes the damn list of what we are allowed to say.
The question of whether the vaccines are experimental does not hinge upon the proclamations of a captured regulatory agency with a revolving door to the companies it's regulating. They have approved an experimental vaccine.
Not only that, but you can't actually get the approved Comirnaty version of the Pfizer shots. The "legally distinct" EUA injections are still the only ones available. The FDA's "approval" is a bait-and-switch.
No "they" are forcing us to be part of a human experiment.
It doesn't matter that what I eat, or the fact that I drive a car, or other medication I take is several orders of magnitude more risky than getting vaccinated. I just don't want others to decide what's good for me.
When you eat, others have likely decided what's good for you - the meat is probably USDA inspected, the grain subject to requirements on maximum levels of rodent and insect bits, etc. When you drive, others have decided crumple zones, air bags, brake lights, and other such things are good for you.
At this point, it looks as though maintaining the vaccines' very marginal protection against SARS-CoV-2 requires biannual dosing with more spike-generating booster doses. Even in this case, the protection is marginal. While the vaccinated may clear the virus from a breakthrough infection more quickly, the peak viral loads are about the same.
There's also the question of biodistribution. Do the spikes from the vaccine wind up in more sensitive, easily damaged cells than the ones which occur from a SARS-CoV-2 infection? Anecdotally, most of my close contacts who were vaccinated spent more time out of commission and had a far worse time than I did with COVID (although I did start treatment early on the second day of symptoms with the FLCCC ivermectin protocol). Theoretically all the vaccine is doing is creating a bunch of spike protein -- if the dose is so much lower why does it affect people so much more?
I still see so much discussion premised on the idea that there is still some tradeoff to be made between mutually exclusive outcomes of "get vaccinated" or "get infected" and it's simply not the case.
Having had 3 doses (I'm overweight, they offered me a 3rd shot at a recent appointment), I had about 6 hours of mild fatigue so far from the vaccines (a day after the 2nd shot). Par for the course for anyone I've talked to about it, with some people having more like a day of fatigue.
Many fewer vaccinated people are getting infected than unvaccinated, so the comparison between people that do get infected isn't the whole story.
Many fewer vaccinated people are getting infected than unvaccinated
I think the data is showing that isn't true, that the numbers are nearly equal in places with a high percentage of the population vaccinated. The only benefit is that the vaccinated don't get as severely ill.
These numbers don't pass the smell test, it's just more nonsense being pumped out by the CDC to push the vaccines, probably in large part an artifact of wildly different levels of testing being done with the unvaccinated vs vaccinated.
In the UK every age group over 30 is seeing a higher case rate in the vaccinated. I think this is probably explained by a higher prevalence of natural immunity in the unvaccinated cohort but it also shows the vaccines are not providing a high level of prevention of infection: https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-...
Do you use the same rigor in information gathering in developing all of your opinions as you used in developing your opinion about my approach to COVID?
I'm not sure which claim of mine you are asserting is "not true" since my post was about case rates and the graph in your link depicts deaths.
As far as the cases go the eugyppius post deals with all the supposed caveats and speculations raised in your fact check link. Very funny how they only get raised when the reported case rates are higher in the vaccinated, and not when it was time to kvetch about a "pandemic of the unvaccinated."
It even supports my natural immunity theory at one point:
> Plus, COVID-19 infections among the unvaccinated in the prior four-week reporting period may be “artificially reducing” the case rate for that group in the latest report.
None of these gymnastics would be necessary if the vaccines were genuinely preventing infections at a rate of 6x.
Mae Brussell's entire back catalog is easy to find if you're looking for something along these lines without the compromised elements. Dave Emory also has a massive library and is still going strong, doing great work on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 in particular. For modern-day parapolitical podcasts there's The Liminalist, Subliminal Jihad, The Farm, Psyop Cinema, and many others.