re: CDC — ‘We didn’t issue alert on Vaccine Myocarditis because we didn’t want to cause panic'

quote:

---

My mistake. You're correct. I confused "Toomer Deplorable" with "Tomatocantender".

---

I agree with 808’s comment above: Tomato’s charge does not accurately represent your repeated criticism of Fauci and the CDC. With that charge hanging in the air, I should have likewise noted that you especially have been extremely critical of Fauci’s lies regarding gain-of-function research and the origins of this virus.

I know you had done so but for the benefit of those unfamiliar with those discussions, it should have been brought to the fore. It certainly was not my intent to appear I was jumping on the “Git nC TIGaH!” bandwagon.

But a “Git CrAzY!” bandwagon? I’ll gladly serve as the lead clown in that parade!

quote:

---

But a “Git CrAzY!” bandwagon? I’ll gladly serve as the lead clown in that parade!

---

And look very stupid doing it!

quote:

---

What I wrote about the vaccines had strictly to do with their immunological and molecular characteristics as a counterweight to charlatans

---

Yet now we have myocarditis rearing its head again. We have evidence of the medical bureaucracy lying to the public, and denying parents full informed consent in choosing care options for their kids.

Where there could be a reasonable dialogue regarding frequency/severity of post-vax vs post-CV19 myocarditis, medical/scientific establishment duplicity now renders such discussions implausible. It gets back to the high cost of a breach clinical trust which you and I have discussed previously.

On another note,

you definitely stated that a vaccine roll out that wasn’t global in scope, would ultimately be ineffective.

You didn’t promote the vaccine, but you lost certainly noted the limitations in terms of distribution.

quote:

---

you definitely stated that a vaccine roll out that wasn’t global in scope, would ultimately be ineffective.

---

It's one of the first things I said about the vaccine. Arguably that method prolonged the pandemic.

quote:

---

You didn’t promote the vaccine, but you lost certainly noted the limitations in terms of distribution.

---

It wasn't a realistic choice in terms of a disease control strategy given the world as it stands. In a perfect world, you could have possibly controlled the disease by limiting its genomic diversity from generation to generation, but isn't the world we live in or lived in at the time. Just the fact that the disease had no pathognomonic sign that could differentiate it from other respiratory diseases required more foresight and thought than the powers that be exhibited.

I can be moved by arguments that suggest that the bungling was intentional, or that the idea of prolonging the pandemic for the purposes of short-term profits, but the theoretical design of the vaccine was clever, except its ultimate effects would be determined not by the vaccine itself, but by the disease control strategy as a whole.

What I mean here is that something like the smallpox vaccine, which was a vaccine which had an injury rate much higher than any vaccine in recent memory, was for a disease that had a remarkably consistent presentation, and thus controlling the vectors of transmission was easier, which made the project of eliminating the disease a real possibility. The overall disease control strategy informed the ultimate effectiveness of the vaccine, not in a per dose sense, but in the sense of what it could achieve.

Looking back, it beggars belief that the design that was chosen was for a virus that had an inconsistent presentation and course, with no exanthem or enanthem to distinguish it, and possibly only anosmia as a characteristic sign, with very little real way of controlling transmission (I guess outside of the consistent use of high-quality respirators). A vaccine by itself has never been a primary method of disease control. It has to be part of a broader strategy, but at times it was our only strategy.

From a strict epidemiological perspective, the lack of vision, the inconsistency of execution, the randomness of information distribution, and the curious disease control strategies are the areas where public health authorities failed so badly that I'm not surprised that no one would believe them. That somehow I've become a representative of these viewpoints while ignoring the actual content of my posts is another matter.

quote:

---

What does this have to do with people like McCullough suggesting that the vaccine was integrating into the human genome?

---

I hadn't seen that. But even assuming he did make those claims, the way to combat scientific misinformation is with truth, not antithetical misinformation.

Scientific truth is not determined by charlatan groups with the largest megaphone or police force. Yet, in this century, that is exactly what is reported (and taught) as determinative. Whether the issue is health care or climate change, unapologetic antiscience proliferates.

So your complaints and/or those of your attendings about anything McCullough says ring quite hollow.

quote:

---

In short, there isn’t any long term data regarding this aspect, so it goes without saying that the lack of data (intentional?) doesn’t allow for a conclusion.

My take is that they chose not to extend the study because they were scared of what they might have seen.

---

The primary “charlatans” in this entire sordid episode have been the unelected and unaccountable elite in our nation’s wholly corrupted public health apparatus who refuse to take responsibility for their own failures.

Yet the “smart-set” in the media — and on this very board — would rather focus their ire on us dim-witted laypeople who have come to rightly question the lies and propaganda of these all knowing savants rather than dare question the administrative state which empowers this self-appointed ruling elite in the public sphere.

There seems to be something endemic in the progressive mindset that seeks to blame others for their own failed agenda.

Would they but once devote an iota of their vast intellectual superiority on pondering why us drooling, unthinking dolts in the hinterlands have lost faith in our supposed intellectual betters in Washington D.C.?

Americans’ Trust in Scientists Continue to Decline: Among both Democrats and Republicans, trust in scientists is lower than before the pandemic….

quote:

---

So your complaints and/or those of your attendings about anything McCullough says ring quite hollow.

---

Well, anyone who self-describes as a "shitposter" the way Crazy did shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.

quote:

---

Yet the “smart-set” in the media — and on this very board — would rather focus their ire on us dim-witted laypeople who have come to rightly question the lies and propaganda of these all knowing savants rather than dare question the administrative state which empowers this self-appointed ruling elite in the public sphere.

---

You aren't really doing very much questioning if you are parroting the takes of people who are just saying things to take advantage of you.