Hints of change in MSM take on everything COVID

That's a horrible subject line, granted, but I've never been very gifted in the art of subject lines.

Regardless, I have noticed a gradual, understated shift in main stream media perspectives, or at least tolerated editorials, on issues surrounding covid. There's been a slew of stories on how a lab leak isn't such a crazy idea after all. For example:

Senior Biden officials finding that Covid lab leak theory as credible as natural origins explanation

and, more recently-

WHO chief says it was 'premature' to rule out COVID lab leak

What strikes me about this is that these are 180 turns on previous, adamant positions by same organizations. So that's it? We admit that it may have come from a lab. Oh golly, sorry! Radio silence.

It would be interesting to analyze when these stories break. Do they do so late on Friday afternoons? Are they buried? Why isn't this making more noise?

But the most recent one really drives this shift home:

Why America Doesn't Trust the CDC | Opinion

This piece knocks it out of the ballpark because it specifically identifies how the CDC recommendations are NOT based on science. It infers criminality on the part of the CDC. And it does so in a very main stream media source. This is not a fringe publication.

Some excerpts:

Very first paragraph. Bam! Take that on the nose CDC (emphasis added on all excerpts except where noted):

People don't trust the CDC. Here's one example illustrating why. Two weeks ago, with no outcomes data on COVID-19 booster shots for 5-to-11-year-olds, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) vigorously recommended the booster for all 24 million American children in that age group. The CDC cited a small Pfizer study of 140 children that showed boosters elevated their antibody levels—an outcome known to be transitory.

(Emphasis in next paragraph is the author's)

When that study concluded, a Pfizer spokesperson said it did not determine the efficacy of the booster in the 5-to-11-year-olds. But that didn't matter to the CDC. Seemingly hoping for a different answer, the agency put the matter before its own kangaroo court of curated experts, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

I'll fight the temptation to just paste the entire article.

I listened to the meeting, and couldn't believe what I heard. At times, the committee members sounded like a group of marketing executives. Dr. Beth Bell of the University of Washington said "what we really need to do is to be as consistent and clear and simple as possible," pointing out that the committee needed "a consistent recommendation which is simple."

Other committee members similarly emphasized the importance of a universal booster message that applies to all age groups. Dr. David Kimberlin, editor of the American Academy of Pediatrics Red Book, speaking on his own behalf, said "Americans are yearning for, are crying out for a simpler way for looking at this pandemic." He suggested that not recommending boosters for young children would create confusion that "could also bleed over to 12-to-17-year-olds, and even the adult population."

It is marketing, and this attitude shows in what regard the CDC holds us. It's an arrogant, controlling mindset.

The next bit is just frightening, and, IMO, it suggests criminality:

The committee also debated how hard to push the booster recommendation, discussing whether the CDC should say that 5-to-11-year-olds "may" get a booster versus "should" get it.

Exhibiting classic medical paternalism, committee member Dr. Oliver Brooks of the Watts Healthcare Corporation said "I think may is confusing and may sow doubt," adding "if we say should more people will get boosted versus may, then we may have more data that helps us really define where we're going." Dr. Brooks was essentially suggesting that boosting in this age group would be a clinical trial conducted without informed consent.

That doesn't sound like following the science to me.

Me neither, Marty. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

ACIP's medical establishment representatives were on hand for the meeting. They included members of the trade association Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association (AMA). Dr. Sandra Fryhofer, an internist representing the AMA, summarized the tone of the many legacy stakeholders present with a passionate plea: "I urge the committee to support a 'should' recommendation for this third dose."

Shocking.

Screw it. Here's the rest. It's too good not to include:

The committee promptly approved the booster for young children by an 11-1 vote, with one obstetrician abstaining because he missed some of the discussion.

The one dissenting vote came from Dr. Keipp Talbot of Vanderbilt University, who courageously said vaccines, while extremely effective, "are not without their potential side effects." She questioned the sustainability of vaccinating the population every six months. Many experts agree with her, but they don't have a platform to speak. In fact, nearly 40 percent of rural parents say their pediatricians do not recommend the primary vaccine series for children. Those pediatricians were not represented on the committee.

The CDC has a history of appointing like-minded loyalists to its committees. Last year, it dismissed a member of its vaccine safety group, Harvard professor of medicine Dr. Martin Kuldorff, for dissenting from its decision to pause the J&J vaccine. A year ago, Joe Biden appointed party devotees to his COVID-19 task force. Reaching a consensus is easier that way.

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) vaccine advisory committee, comprised of the nation's top vaccine experts, have made similar public statements as Dr. Talbot. But the committee was not involved in approving boosters for children. The FDA actually bypassed it days prior—the third time over the last year that the FDA made sweeping and controversial authorizations without convening its vaccine experts.

Most remarkably, it didn't seem to matter to the CDC that 75.2 percent of children under age 11 already have natural immunity, according to a CDC study that concluded in February. Natural immunity is certainly much more prevalent today, given the ubiquity of the Omicron variant since February. CDC data from New York and California demonstrated that natural immunity was 2.8 times more effective in preventing hospitalization and 3.3 to 4.7 times more effective in preventing COVID infection compared to vaccination during the Delta wave. These findings are consistent with dozens of other clinical studies. Yet natural immunity has consistently and inexplicably been dismissed by the medical establishment.

When the CDC voted, director Dr. Rochelle Walensky declared that the booster dose is safe for kids ages 5-11. Yes, the complication rate is very low, and we think it's safe, but how can anyone know from only a short-term follow-up of 140 children? The more appropriate assessment is that we believe it's safe but we can't be sure yet from the data we have so far. Unfortunately, the strength of the CDC recommendation to boost all children 5 and up will trigger some schools and summer camps to blindly mandate a third dose for healthy children who don't need it.

Instead of pushing boosters on healthy children who are already immune, public health officials should focus on recommending the primary COVID vaccine series to high-risk children who don't have any immunity.

Public health officials are expected to recommend COVID vaccines for children under 5 as soon as June 21st, despite the fact that the vast majority of children already have natural immunity. In a recent Kaiser survey, only 18 percent of parents said they were eager to vaccinate their child in that age group.

If the CDC is curious as to why people aren't listening to its recommendations, it should consider how it bypassed experts to put the matter before a Kangaroo court of like-minded loyalists. The Biden administration should insist that we return to the standard process of putting all major vaccine decisions before a vote of the FDA's leading vaccine experts.

The Biden administration promised to listen to the scientists. But the truth is, it only seems to listen to the ones who say what it wants to hear.

Marty Makary M.D., M.P.H. (@MartyMakary) is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and author of The New York Times Bestselling Book, The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care and How To Fix It.

I see now that this was published on June 10, a Friday, the day it's least likely to be read.

It's not particularly burning up the MSM either. Already forgotten.

Excellent point. The may V should debate highlights how far THE Science has strayed from the path of what's true.

All this is justified in their own heads because they think they're acting according to some higher truth, or the greater-good, or because we're too big to fail.

We need to say 'should' coz if we say 'may' it may lead to vaccine hesitancy which may undermine our authority. Then how would we introduce our global bio-state (to save millions of imaginary lives/entrench us as global rulers) if everyone realizes we're full of shit.

The other point worth noting is this is not the estab science community's first rodeo in terms of telling whoppers to the world. By and large, these global health bodies are simply following the blueprint from previous events- Anthrax, literally caused by a (likely some) top-scientist, enabling the whole bio-terrorism WMD lie that led to Iraq War 2 is one example.

SARS-1 is another - the origin of which is still unexplained, despite what we've heard. Both led to massive funding boosts.

Covid funding dwarfs even those two supernovas. The lesson, the worse we make it, the better it gets for us!

The galling part is: these global experts continually get away with it - which, not surprisingly, is why they keep doing it. They are currently in the process of getting away with it again - as the title of your thread indicates. All these WHO, CDC, Nature elites that concocted, then used their immense power to spread Covid whoppers, are quietly shifting ground to dodge accountability.

I wonder if power is a limited substance - coz it seems like the more power these pricks vacuum up, the more powerless the normal person becomes. It flows directly from one to the other.

There is a growing undercurrent of disaffection within society - i'm part of it - but i fail to see hardly any politicians willing to represent that space. The reason, i guess, is in the too big to fail thinking. If what we've witnessed is our entire system of experts complicit in spreading brazen lies due to self-interest, that suggests the solution lies in a wholesale revolution in how our societies are run.

Nobody in a position of power is going to go for that.

They got this far according to the rules of the hierarchical expertocracy - you're not gonna dismantle your own support system.

Trouble is, AI, wielded by these whopper-tellers, is coming at us dumb-humans at a million miles an hour - it's already here. It's humanity-shaping. That sounds melo-dramatic, but it's not.

Now is the time to recognize that reality, have a public discussion, decide how we want to deal with it.

If our lives have been invaded by the experts due to a disease caused by the experts, that must be addressed. I don't give a fuck if that's uncomfortable for some nice, rich scientists or not.

Ten years time will be too late. Now might be too late - but it's still worth a try. Once our freedoms, rights to privacy are gone - they're gone forever. As humans, we must have a say in that.

I wonder if power is a limited substance - coz it seems like the more power these pricks vacuum up, the more powerless the normal person becomes. It flows directly from one to the other.

Excellent question. To what extent is power finite. Is there a limited amount, or can it be printed like money.

Speaking of money, I just took a break from watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7sWLIybWnQ. I'm sure the guest said that since 2009, 30 TRILLION dollars has been created by QA. 30 trillion, just created out of thin air. Created to soothe the masses, but it will all end up in the hands of those with power while the masses deal with the fallout which is inflation. Inflation that we're seeing now.

But what of power? How is it quantified? Wow. Great question.

There is a growing undercurrent of disaffection within society - i'm part of it - but i fail to see hardly any politicians willing to represent that space. The reason, i guess, is in the too big to fail thinking. If what we've witnessed is our entire system of experts complicit in spreading brazen lies due to self-interest, that suggests the solution lies in a wholesale revolution in how our societies are run.

I'm afraid you are correct here. The power structure is too strong for those with a vision to actually make a change from within. I've long held the belief that even revolution won't change things. I think we need to actually evolve as a species. Is that possible? Can we survive long enough to evolve our way out of this? But, of course, multiple revolutions will drive the evolution. But it's not like one or two or three revolutions will change anything. We've had plenty of those.

At the same time, one could argue that in some ways things are getting better. There is a global acceptance that slavery is bad, human rights is good, yadda yadda yadda, even though slavery still exists everywhere and human rights are trampled every day. So, maybe things aren't getting better?

Maybe any progress we've seen has been made possible by prosperity derived from scientific/technical advances, and once those advances cease to benefit the masses, that progress may collapse like a house of cards? Unless, of course, AI and human social engineering succeeds in turning people into complacent sheep. Happy sheep. Stupid happy sheep.

Regardless, I agree. I'm part of this growing dissatisfaction too. So is most everyone I know regardless of where on the political or spiritual spectrum they lie. Things are massively fucked up and everyone knows it.

Nobody in a position of power is going to go for that.

They got this far according to the rules of the hierarchical expertocracy - you're not gonna dismantle your own support system.

That's right! Why would they dismantle their own house?

Trouble is, AI, wielded by these whopper-tellers, is coming at us dumb-humans at a million miles an hour - it's already here. It's humanity-shaping. That sounds melo-dramatic, but it's not.

No, it's not. I see the kids I work with completely OK with how their privacy is being raped. Too bad this rape, which will end up owning them, means nothing to any modern culture. It's not only OK, it's rewarded.

Now is the time to recognize that reality, have a public discussion, decide how we want to deal with it.

If our lives have been invaded by the experts due to a disease caused by the experts, that must be addressed. I don't give a fuck if that's uncomfortable for some nice, rich scientists or not.

Ten years time will be too late. Now might be too late - but it's still worth a try. Once our freedoms, rights to privacy are gone - they're gone forever. As humans, we must have a say in that.

I agree, but how? Everyone is preaching to their own choir, and this gets back to the AI. It's by design. The AI assures that. The AI, the media, makes it difficult, even taboo, for people of different persuasions to have an open discussion. This is what we used to revel in! This is what makes us human! But now, being open minded is simply taboo, particularly if you are a politician.

I wish I had a good answer or solution. I think the next 12-36 months are going to be really, really bad. I think what's coming is going to make covid look like a day in the park. There's something happening below the lives of us normal folk (I almost used above, but fuck that. Those people are demons). The house of cards is way too tall to stand much longer, and it's mostly financial... the power hungry have been sucking the blood out of the world economy way to long and it can't be maintained. So, it's going to go through a massive shock, the economy that is, and this will give those in power even more power.

It's a vicious cycle. It's no lose for the rich and no progress for the poor and middle class. They hold all cards. House collapses? No problem. Inhale all the wealth in the world in the name of social safety and security, whether that inhalation be to the military, the banks (because they're too big to fail, not like you or me), reconstruction, or themselves.

At the same time, one could argue that in some ways things are getting better. There is a global acceptance that slavery is bad, human rights is good, yadda yadda yadda, even though slavery still exists everywhere and human rights are trampled every day. So, maybe things aren't getting better?

One view is that the 'cultural revolution' that begun in the 60's-70's was 'won'. There are things that are better as you mention - along with women's rights, gay rights, racism is less, etc. Those advances were made through organization - becoming as organized as the right - even more so. The trouble is that organization - the political machine - was so successful that it became the dominant force. The machine subsumed the individual activists as well as basic moral principles that had guided their idealism.

One of the ironies of today's situation is the makers & shakers of the progressive side of politics, the side that is supposed to represent the poor and disenfranchised, are all super rich. Having attained this wealth and power over the machine, they do what humans do - strive to entrench/increase that power, to centralize it further.

People are now in the ridiculous position of cheering for billionaires - that's what our influence has been reduced to.

For those looking to Musk to 'save free-speech' - that's fraught with peril. Musk is another inaccessible celebrity with enormous power who is actively looking to centralize power.

The house of cards is way too tall to stand much longer, and it's mostly financial... the power hungry have been sucking the blood out of the world economy way to long and it can't be maintained. So, it's going to go through a massive shock, the economy that is, and this will give those in power even more power.

It's interesting to note Musk is willing a recession to happen for the very reason you mention. It's common sense that the best place to ride out a storm is behind the palace gates - then you go out and claim control over all the wreckage. That wreckage won't be the big operators - it will be small businesses, normal people. The net result is it even further concentrates power.

It's a vicious cycle. It's no lose for the rich and no progress for the poor and middle class. They hold all cards. House collapses? No problem. Inhale all the wealth in the world in the name of social safety and security, whether that inhalation be to the military, the banks (because they're too big to fail, not like you or me), reconstruction, or themselves.

Aristotle had the idea that the ideal-sized state is one that's encompassed in the range of the town-crier's voice. He came to this conclusion coz he knew vast kingdoms controlled by an inaccessible few would inevitably lead to despots abusing power, which he considered the worst form of government. This appears to be what is happening. It may sound far-fetched, but i wonder if this localized power-structure might make a come-back. At least then if i don't like the direction my community is heading in then i can go to a local meeting and raise my objections directly with those who are making the decisions.

Only problem is it make take the collapse of civilization to ever get back to that point.

Aristotle had the idea that the ideal-sized state is one that's encompassed in the range of the town-crier's voice. He came to this conclusion coz he knew vast kingdoms controlled by an inaccessible few would inevitably lead to despots abusing power, which he considered the worst form of government.

I'm going to use this in The Refuser. Thanks for sharing.

Only problem is it make take the collapse of civilization to ever get back to that point.

Yep. Centralized power will never give their power up by choice.

Aristotle had the idea that the ideal-sized state is one that's encompassed in the range of the town-crier's voice. He came to this conclusion coz he knew vast kingdoms controlled by an inaccessible few would inevitably lead to despots abusing power, which he considered the worst form of government.

I'm going to use this in The Refuser. Thanks for sharing.

Great! According to AC Grayling's book, A History of Philosophy, the story about him being Alexander's tutor is way over-played. If he was, Alexander paid zero attention to anything he said. Apart from becoming the despot that Aristotle feared, Alexander ultimately ordered the arrest of Aristotle on the charge of 'impiety' (same as Socrates) - but he escaped and died in exile shortly after.

I wonder if power is a limited substance - coz it seems like the more power these pricks vacuum up, the more powerless the normal person becomes. It flows directly from one to the other.

If we're talking about sociopolitical power, then wouldn't it be defined as being the extent to which one controls (use the verb of your choice: owns, directs, etc.) the potential of oneself and other people?

So, to the extent that somebody can control my potential as a human being, they control me. By this definition, freedom is having complete control over one's own potential. Slaves have very little control over their own potential. People living in totalitarian societies likewise have very little control over their own potential (i.e., no choice) and so have little freedom.

We saw how the covid police took control of our potential as individuals. That potential is gold. It's worth more than absolutely anything else. Nothing is more valuable to those thirsting for power than being able to direct the potential of other people.

By this definition, it is finite. A nightmare of totalitarian types would be having nobody to control. Maybe that's what countries are ultimately fighting over. Not resources, but human potential, which I guess is the ultimate resource.

If we're talking about sociopolitical power, then wouldn't it be defined as being the extent to which one controls (use the verb of your choice: owns, directs, etc.) the potential of oneself and other people?

Sounds about right.

We saw how the covid police took control of our potential as individuals. That potential is gold. It's worth more than absolutely anything else. Nothing is more valuable to those thirsting for power than being able to direct the potential of other people.

That's it! Controlling the potential of all the individuals - on a mass scale - that's God-playing territory.

There's also a quantum mechanics component to it - for every hi-jacked potential - there's the un-lived potential scenario. Does that still exist?

By this definition, it is finite. A nightmare of totalitarian types would be having nobody to control. Maybe that's what countries are ultimately fighting over. Not resources, but human potential, which I guess is the ultimate resource.

That's where the war is won or lost.

My gut-feeling from the whole Covid experience was: The more powerful the influencers got, the less powerful i got. Try influencing one of them - see how you get along.

Normal people are being removed from the equation of influencing their own or the collective's potential.

As you said earlier: What can we do about it?

I don't know. It's tricky when you have no power.

I guess open it up publicly as at least a topic to be discussed is a good first step. The under current is there - if someone with a bit of charisma can embody it then ...

Then they'll probably wind up like Assange & Snowden ...

Yeah, i don't know. What do you think?

Sanders: I believe in my partisanship, but more important, I believe we have a corrupt political system dominated by wealthy campaign contributors.

That's pretty much the state of things - from someone who would know having spent his life in politics. Explains why there's so little diversity of views.

Though even Sanders has said nothing about the origin of Covid or rise of the bio-state - not that i've heard anyway.

BBC: Multiple people say they are being forced to quarantine, blocked from public transport or entering buildings. Most appear to be customers of four rural banks which had run into issues providing cash withdrawals, report Chinese media outlets.

The banks froze deposits, prompting angry demonstrations last month.

In many Chinese cities, residents use a "health code" app to enter buildings and shops, use public transport, or leave the city. Users must scan a QR code and show a colour-coded "health status" on their phone before entering.

If this status turns red, it indicates the person has tested positive for Covid recently or is suspected to have Covid, and must be quarantined for 14 days.

On Tuesday, some residents found their status had turned red when they tried to enter train stations, buildings, or hotels. Customers of the four banks who travelled from other provinces to Henan's capital city Zhengzhou have also encountered the same issue.

This is where it's all heading. If you step out of line, we freeze your bank account, code-red you - then code-red your family for good measure.

From the article:

One bank customer in Zhengzhou told BBC Chinese her status was red even though she had never been in contact with a confirmed case, and her most recent tests showed she was negative.

She added that she was visited by health officials who asked her to stay at home and refused to explain why her status had suddenly turned red.

Imagine your freedom controlled by an app.

RSS Feed of thread

Formosahut forum

Hints of change in MSM take on everything COVID (General)