Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

Scientist: There was 'NO basis' for claims COVID shots safe during pregnancy (wnd.com)

There's much known now about the COVID-19 shots developed on a hurried scientific timeline during the pandemic.
And now a physician and biotech consultant in global health, David Bell of the Brownstone Institute, has reviewed the evidence and has concluded that "there is NO basis for saying the vaccine is safe in pregnancy."

Bell, a former medical officer and scientist at the World Health Organization and program head for malaria and febrile diseases at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics in Geneva, Switzerland, added, "The data implies that not only was the government's 'safe and effective' sloganeering not accurate, it was totally misleading with respect to the safety data available."

He explained that by late 2021, women, including those pregnant, "were being thrown out of employment for not agreeing to be injected. Those who took the mRNA vaccines did so based on trust in health authorities – the assumption being that they would not have been approved if the evidence was not absolutely clear. The role of regulatory agencies was to protect the public and, therefore, if they were approved, the 'vaccines' were safe."


He explained, "The study demonstrated that the vaccine will travel throughout the body after injection, and is found not only at the injection site, but in all organs tested, with high concentration in the ovaries, liver, adrenal glands, and spleen. Authorities who assured vaccinated people in early 2021 that the vaccine stays in the arm were, as we have known for two years, lying."

 

WND, Brownstone Institute founded by Jeff Tucker, senior economics and anarchist for Epoch Times.... mix in a little Western J and Infowars maybe. So David Bell complains that in 2021, in Austria, Pfizer data may have glossed over lab rat data results, of course the data, nor the source was referenced, but the reality is that in 2023: 5 billion doses later and there's no major disaster. I'm sure he's disappointed. LOL

 

I only read this part LOL. Thanks for agreeing Walensky lied to Congress. Cochrane authors stand by their work that masks don't work.

 

And holy crap this is still happening in 2023! These people are batshit crazy for still requiring a negative covid test to go back to school. What color is the sky in their world?

 

Reading comprehension problems again? Cochrane stands by their work. But where in their work does it say masks don't work definitively? Here's a hint. Read their statement. They claim their study doesn't do that.

 

Grift continues! It's funny that the Cochrane review Authors say "they didn't retract anything" yet Walensky tries to argue they did. Why would Walensky try to argue this? Because the study shows masks don't work. Tough one to take the L on. I mean on top of lockdowns, school closures, Natural immunity, vaxxing kids and now masks, you are on one hell of a Heater! How someone can be wrong on all of those covid issues is so funny. One would think a person would shut up if they were so wrong on something but man you are relentless. Relentlessly wrong and idiotic, but relentless nonetheless.

 

Maybe you missed this statement directly from Cochrane the first time.

Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation. [emphasis added]
​

Now, tell me again the Cochrane study, in which the authors say doesn't conclude masks don't work, says definitively that masks don't work!

 

Grift on! It's amazing to me that some people are this dumb to not understand that study. It's WHY Walensky tried to say the Cochrane study was retracted because the study shows masks don't work. I can't help you if you are too obtuse do understand a study. Makes sense since you were wrong on everything covid so I guess you are keeping your streak of being wrong going.

 

I run a sales route in mostly rural areas. On average, I’d guess that a customer a week is out with Covid. Without fail I question them when they return to work. I ask them about symptoms. They always say they were mild. Then I ask them why they tested. They always basically say they were overcome by curiosity. Testing is a habit that needs to be broken. But people just don’t want to miss out on having a part in the ‘Pandemic of the Century.’

 

"Inaccurate and misleading." Not my words. The words of the people who did the actual study when it comes to the claim that masks don't work. Whom should I believe? Some random guy on the Internet who disregards all information that doesn't support his opinions? Or the actual authors of the scientific study? Hmmmmm....

 

Just Crazy!

 

The Authors stand by their study. Sucks for the Grifters! Epic fail again. Must suck being so wrong like you are.

 

Better to argue from a standpoint of no viruses. 49 studies will show masks no effect and Covidians will find one that suggests slight effect.

 

Yes they do. And in the authors' own words, those who claim that the study proves masks to be ineffective are being, "Inaccurate and misleading." I linked the dictionary definition to each word in case you needed some help understanding what inaccurate and misleading meant.

 

Vaccine injuries become the dominant theme of German reporting on the mRNA jabs, as the Covid vaccinations face unacknowledged yet ever wider cultural and social repudiation

 

Nope. They stand by their work. Masks don't work. Sorry, your last hold on for covid hysteria has gone up in smoke. Tough one Skippy.

 

If you love this study so much you should probably read the author's conclusions sometime. It's only three paragraphs:

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

 

"Masks don't work." - Some random guy on the Internet based on a specific Cochrane study

Those that say the study proves masks don't work are being, "inaccurate and misleading." - Authors of the Cochrane study itself.

What part of the authors of the study claiming your position to be "inaccurate and misleading" do you have a problem understanding?

 

Mask and vaccine pushers don’t believe that either ‘works.’ It’s why wearing and getting theirs was never enough. You had wear and get yours too.