The Center for Disease Control is the United States’ go-to source for critical advice.
However, these trusted medical professionals have wavered and wobbled on policy mandates so often, no one trusts them anymore. It’s with good reason. One key question about this pandemic centers around the immunity gained by those who have recovered from COVID.
No one at the CDC, or within the liberal news media, will discuss it. Anyone wanting to gauge their need for a COVID vaccination, based on any degree of natural protection, must dig for data.
As breakthrough cases of C?VID infiltrate the v?ccinated population, another question has arisen. The CDC says that v?ccinated and unvaccinated people should keep wearing masks. Their reasoning is that despite being protected from severe medical consequences, vaccinated people can still infect others.
But why is no one willing to openly talk about those who have gained natural COVID immunity? Is it possible for someone with natural COVID immunity to contract and then spread the virus? A New York attorney is pushing this same question.
In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filled in September, this attorney asked for specific documents. He wanted to know if any unvaccinated individual, who had acquired COVID immunity from having it, had transmitted SARS CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.
The response that the attorney received from the CDC might surprise you. The CDC said, “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. The CDC Emergency Operation Center (EOC) conveyed that this information is not collected.”
The next logical question would seem to be, “why not”? Why is the leading agency for infectious diseases not keeping infection data across all spectra of the pandemic? Or is it just that the CDC doesn’t warrant any aspect of natural immunity to be of value.
But the CDC consistently doubles down on how it’s only acquired via population v?ccination percentages. No one will talk openly about the wealth of studies which have shown natural immunity to multiple times more effective than the v?ccination.
If people begin to realize that if they’re healthy, they can get COVID and recover. People will begin to live their lives without a fear of reprisal for being one of the “unvaccinated”. When people understand they may not need a vaccination, that’s like thumbing their nose at Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates.
******************************************
Are rare vaccine reactions being brushed off by doctors?
A disturbing report from Australia
Dan Petrovic describes himself as an avid “pro-vaxxer” who has long advocated vaccines to his more hesitant friends – so it was a “comedy twist” when he was the one who suffered a rare side effect.
The marketing executive, 42, spent six weeks after his second Pfizer shot with constant chest pains, which his GP ultimately said was likely a mild case of pericarditis, or inflammation of the lining around the heart.
On September 18, four days after his jab, Mr Petrovic began to feel unwell while watching TV. “I can’t lean to the left side, I feel a bit short of breath,” he said. “It’s just like constant pain and palpitations. It doesn’t go away. Imagine enduring six weeks of that.”
Mr Petrovic, the managing director of search engine marketing firm Dejan, said he was bemused that for “six weeks of pain, they classify it as subtle and mild”. “This wasn’t a little bit of pain, this hits really hard and it was lingering for a long time,” he said.
“It’s a debilitating condition – can’t work, can’t walk, can’t walk up and down the stairs, can’t play with my daughter.”
After weeks of “ping pong” between appointments and $3000 in medical costs, he has now largely recovered with only a “little bit of pain” once a week.
While he still doesn’t regret taking the vaccine, Mr Petrovic says one thing concerns him. Neither his cardiologist nor his GP would submit an adverse event report to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
After his experience, he fears that the TGA, which monitors adverse vaccine reactions, may not be getting the full picture. “I asked my doctor, ‘Are you going to submit this to the TGA as suspected pericarditis?’” Mr Petrovic said. “He said, ‘You can go online to do it. I’m too busy.’”
Similarly, his cardiologist, having ruled out more serious myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart itself, would not submit a report as he didn’t “see any damage” on his scans.
“Shouldn’t this be mandatory for medical practitioners?” Mr Petrovic said. “There’s a big difference between a doctor report and a patient self-report. I cannot make a medical diagnosis, I’m not a practitioner.”
He did submit his own, which now appears in the Database of Adverse Event Notifications – the TGA’s anonymised list of raw, unconfirmed reports – but it’s unclear whether his case is included in the regulator’s overall numbers of pericarditis.
“My problem is that I have absolutely zero visibility into how my submission of an adverse effect has been treated, collected, processed and classified,” he said.
In its weekly safety report, the TGA lists cases assessed as “likely” myocarditis, as well as a larger number that are “suspected”.
Among likely cases, those classified as “level one” are “confirmed to be myocarditis based on strong clinical evidence including the patient’s symptoms, and results of tests and imaging”.
Mr Petrovic stresses he is still a strong supporter of vaccination against Covid-19. “The pamphlet was saying [the risk of rare heart inflammation] is one in 100,000 – even if it was one in 10,000 I would have gone ahead and done it anyway,” he said. “I was willing to accept the risk to protect the community.”
But he is concerned – from a data perspective – about what appears to be a lack of rigorous protocols for medical practitioners to report adverse events.
“I believe every doctor, every medical professional, when a patient complains of a complication after a vaccine, they should make a report,” he said.
Even if the doctor is not 100 per cent convinced the reaction is connected to the vaccine, he argues, the TGA should still be receiving this “dirty data”.
“I don’t appreciate working with bad data,” he said. “Bad data means bad science. To me that’s not OK. In my profession I work with data – if I have bad data I make bad decisions for clients, and that’s just marketing. In health there is an even bigger responsibility.”
Mr Petrovic worries that people being brushed off by health practitioners only fuels mistrust and conspiracy theories. “The public cannot lose trust and confidence in science and the scientific method,” he said.
************************************
Biden Vax Mandate Thwarted Again
The American people have been very clear in recent months in regard to their feelings about the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. You see, this is a nation of bodily autonomy, and there is no love for the idea that the federal government could or should mandate what we put into our bodies.
This is why the White House’s vaccine mandate has been such an irreparably opposed issue, not only from a public standpoint, but from a legal one as well.
A federal appeals court in New Orleans has halted the Biden administration’s vaccine or testing requirement for private businesses, delivering another political setback to one of the White House’s signature public health policies.
Their ruling appeared to be fairly common sense.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, helmed by one judge who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and two others who were appointed by President Donald Trump, issued the ruling Friday, after temporarily halting the mandate last weekend in response to lawsuits filed by Republican-aligned businesses and legal groups.
Calling the requirement a “mandate,” the court said the rule, instituted through the Labor Department, “grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority,” according to the opinion, written by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt and joined by Judges Edith H. Jones and Stuart Kyle Duncan.
“Rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the Mandate purports to address,” they wrote.
This certainly isn’t the first time that the Biden vaccine mandate has been under litigious criticism, and there is little doubt that it also won’t be the last.
https://flagandcross.com/biden-vax-mandate-thwarted-again-this-time-by/
***********************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*************************************
