[ExI] lancet publishes information

[Dylan Distasio]

I must have missed the part over the last 2+ years where questioning the
official narrative was not only allowed, but actively encouraged by those
setting public health policy.   I guess we have different definitions of
"flat-out lies."

What exactly has the CDC been doing to address those questions?

The fact that they put Covid-19 vaccines on the recommended childhood
vaccination schedule despite concerns that have been raised demonstrates
that they are in fact ignoring them.   Covid kills very, very few healthy
children, and there would appear to be a signal in the data of a potential
link between myocarditis (which is a very serious condition, not a minor
one) and young males, in particular, taking this shot.   Someone who is
taking these questions seriously would not continue to be setting blanket
public health policies around these vaccines.

There is also troubling data indicating a shift from IgG3 to IgG4
immunoglobulins that appears to get worse with continued boosting.   Based
on current CDC policy, they are not taking this potential issue seriously
either.

I see no evidence that US public health authorities have acknowledged
potential issues with both safety and efficacy around these vaccines, and
they continue to set policy as if they had received no concerning data
post-roll out.



On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 4:33 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> For instance, "legitimate questions that noone in the public health sphere
> wants to address" is a flat-out lie.  By most definitions of "the public
> health sphere" there are people in that group who want to and are
> addressing those questions.  This should be obvious to most people.
>
> Whether those questions are "legitimate" is another story: given the high
> volume of not just inaccurate information but disinformation (that is,
> incorrect information deliberately planted by those who wish to cause harm
> by doing so) out there, most questioners might be acting in good faith by
> asking questions that, when examined from verifiable info, prove to be
> utterly baseless.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230221/cd67c2be/attachment.htm>