Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

COVID-19

Post Fauci NIH can’t help itself. Still misleading public about severity of COVID

Published

2 months ago

8 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

By Ian Miller

NIH’s Latest Desperate Attempt to Incite Fear

The response to the Covid-19 pandemic revealed many concerning aspects of how government functions and how committed individuals and institutions are to maintaining their preferred narratives.

Truth, data, science, evidence…apparently none of those matter relative to the importance of ensuring the public complies with their desired behavior. Perhaps no single individual has been a better representation of the symbiotic relationship between government officials and media members, as well as their ceaseless commitment to ideological priorities, than Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Fauci’s NIAID and its parent organization, the National Institutes of Health, have been two of the most prolific spreaders of ideologically motivated misinformation ever during the pandemic. But Fauci is no longer part of NIH, having departed for the considerable financial rewards available from the private sector.

So as a result of his timely exit, we must finally be witnessing improvements regarding government studies and communication, right? Right?

Not exactly.

Government Covid Misinformation Continues Unabated

A triumphant, breathless press release from the National Institutes of Health was just released in the past week covering a new study that claimed a horrifying new conclusion. Contracting Covid-19 once is bad, but God forbid you experience two bouts of the virus…It’s terrifying.

That’s their claim resulting from utilizing massive volumes of “health data” on over 200,000 Americans who they believe had Covid at least once over a two-and-a-half-year period from 2020-2022.

“Those individuals were originally infected between March 1, 2020-Dec. 31, 2022, and experienced a second infection by March 2023. Most participants (203,735) had Covid-19 twice, but a small number (478) had it three times or more,” the study says.

The conclusion, is at first glance, concerning.

“Using health data from almost 213,000 Americans who experienced reinfections, researchers have found that severe infections from the virus that causes COVID-19 tend to foreshadow similar severity of infection the next time a person contracts the disease. Additionally, scientists discovered that long COVID was more likely to occur after a first infection compared to a reinfection,” the NIH summary claims.

That sounds pretty bad. If you get infected a second time, you’re likely to experience a severe case of Covid. Right?

Except that is a completely inaccurate conclusion based on the limited data presented.

“About 27% of those with severe cases, defined as receiving hospital care for a coronavirus infection, also received hospital care for a reinfection. Adults with severe cases were more likely to have underlying health conditions and be ages 60 or older. In contrast, about 87% of those who had mild Covid cases that did not require hospital care the first time also had mild cases of reinfections,” the researchers write.

And there’s the real story, hidden in plain sight.

We know from years of experience that Covid significantly impacts those who are in poor health, have underlying conditions, or are older AND in poor health. We also know that a very small percentage of Covid cases require treatment in a hospital setting.

All this study shows is that those who are in poor health, have underlying conditions, or are older, are more likely to need additional care if they get Covid a second time. Even then, 73% of those who had a second infection and were hospitalized the first time did not need hospitalization for the second infection. Sure enough, the vast, vast majority of those who had mild Covid cases the first time had mild Covid cases the second time.

The protection from natural immunity is highly important and generally durable, though less so when an individual with poor underlying health has contracted the virus. This is nothing new. But that didn’t stop the new head of the NIH from spouting some impressive fear-mongering and bad science.

NIH Can’t Stop Getting Things Wrong

Dr. Monica Bertagnolli posted a link to the study on X, and a short summary. She repeated the same line about the severity of Covid reinfections, which were intended to undermine the importance of natural immunity.

And more importantly, she claimed that the results underscore “the importance of preventing infection.”

After analyzing data from 200K Americans who had #COVID19 twice, researchers found that a severe #COVID case tended to foreshadow a similarly severe infection the second time, underscoring the importance of preventing infection[.]

Except that’s an impossibility. SARS-CoV-2 is an endemic virus. It will never be eliminated. It will never be stopped. Infection cannot be avoided. Vaccinations don’t prevent it, masks surely are ineffective, and any public interaction may result in an infection.

There simply is no way to prevent infection, which is why some countries have now reported that roughly 70% of their population, even with masking and vaccination, have tested positive. Telling those at risk to try to avoid infection is irresponsible and inaccurate. So why is this coming from the NIH?

Sure enough, these researchers also accidentally made the case for natural immunity. When studying the nonexistent phenomenon of “long Covid,” they found that those who had typical, longer-lasting effects from viral infections had bigger reactions after their first infection.

“Scientists also discovered that regardless of the variant, long Covid cases were more likely to occur after a first infection compared to a reinfection,” the study says.

Why is that? Because of natural immunity.

Under Anthony Fauci, they spent years downplaying it. They continue to undermine it in 2024. But the reality and the science continue to prove that natural immunity is protective and durable, and this is especially true for those in good health and younger age groups. Imagine if government agencies had been willing to admit this in 2020 instead of pointlessly locking down all of society in order to somehow prevent a virus that cannot be prevented.

That would have been the correct evaluation and communication.

But since when have government agencies handled a single aspect of Covid correctly?

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Ian Miller

Ian Miller is the author of “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates.” His work has been featured on national television broadcasts, national and international news publications and referenced in multiple best selling books covering the pandemic. He writes a Substack newsletter, also titled “Unmasked.”

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Automotive / 18 mins ago

‘Gross Overreach’: Energy Groups Urge Congress To Throw Biden-Harris Admin’s ‘EV Mandate’ Overboard

Business / 3 hours ago

Feds blow $2.7 million on global film festivals

National / 3 hours ago

Liberal House Leader tells gov’t-funded media they must ‘scrutinize’ Conservatives

COVID-19

Canada approves Moderna’s latest experimental COVID shot starting after 6 months old

Published on September 18, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Health Canada’s decision to approve the shots follows a bombshell study of Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots that shows “self-assembling nanostructures.”

Health Canada approved Moderna’s new MRNA COVID-19 vaccine for all Canadians over six months of age.

On September 17th, Moderna announced that its latest COVID-19 vaccine, targeting the KP.2 variant of SARS-COV-2, was approved by Health Canada, despite overwhelming evidence of the dangers of the shots.

“With vaccines ready, Moderna will begin delivery of updated doses to the Public Health Agency of Canada, ensuring supply is available in time for provincial and territorial vaccination campaigns,” the company said in a news release.

“Receiving the most recently updated COVID-19 vaccine is expected to provide a better immune response against circulating COVID-19 strains compared to earlier vaccines,” Moderna claimed. “It is especially important for those at increased risk for COVID-19 infection or severe COVID-19 illness.”

The promotion of the experimental shot comes over three years after government officially declared a COVID “pandemic” and forced Canadians to take the vaccine. Additionally, there has been no outbreak of COVID for several years.

Health Canada’s decision to approve the shots follows a bombshell study of Pfizer and Moderna COVID shots that shows “self-assembling nanostructures.”

According to the report, researchers in Korea observed what appear to be “self-assembling,” “synthetic” nanostructures such as spirals and tubes that form within the contents of the COVID Pfizer and Moderna mRNA shots over the course of months.

Canada’s promotion of the vaccine also comes as Canada’s program to compensate those injured by the COVID vaccines has reached $14 million, but the vast majority of claims remain unpaid.

Despite the need for a federal program to address those injured by the vaccines once mandated by the Trudeau government, Health Canada still says “it’s safe to receive a COVID-19 vaccine following infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. Vaccination is very important, even if you’ve had COVID-19.”

The federal government is also continuing to purchase COVID jabs despite the fact the government’s own data shows that most Canadians are flat-out refusing a COVID booster injection.

Some people who were successful in getting payouts from VISP have said that the compensation awarded was insufficient considering the injuries sustained from the COVID shots.

As reported by LifeSiteNews last year, 42-year-old Ross Wightman of British Columbia launched a lawsuit against AstraZeneca, the federal government of Canada, the government of his province, and the pharmacy at which he was injected after receiving what he considers inadequate compensation from VISP.

He was one of the first citizens in Canada to receive federal financial compensation due to a COVID vaccine injury under VISP. Wightman received the AstraZeneca shot in April 2021 and shortly after became totally paralyzed. He was subsequently diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome.

Wightman was given a one-time payout of $250,00 and about $90,000 per year in income replacement but noted, as per a recent True North report, that he does not even know if those dollar amounts “would ease the pain.”

LifeSiteNews has published an extensive amount of research on the dangers of receiving the experimental COVID mRNA jabs, which include heart damage and blood clots.

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

US medical center refusing COVID shots for employees but still promoting to public

Published on September 17, 2024

By

Exert from Medical Musings by Dr. Pierre Kory

Major Covid mRNA policy reversals and awakenings occurred this week within a major U.S health system, a large U.S state, a South American country, and in the UK. The dominoes are starting to fall.

This week a nurse reached out with disturbing descriptions of some major changes she has witnessed inside the Ohio State University Medical Center (OSUMC) system.

OSUMC s a large and comprehensive healthcare organization, with a significant presence in Ohio and a strong focus on research, education, and patient care. It is a massive institution with over 23,000 employees, including:

  • Over 2,000 physicians
  • More than 1,000 residents and fellows
  • Nearly 5,000 nurses

Lets start off with this screenshot of a webpage from OSUMC’s website which provides information to the public as to where they can get Covid-19 vaccines. Check out the highlighted sentence at the bottom of the page:

Wait, what? Ohio State is suddenly no longer offering the Covid-19 vaccine to any of their employees but they are happily offering to inject them into the public? How can such a policy be justified? Why was this change in policy done and why was it done so quietly?

Let’s get this straight. Ohio State’s leadership is now making an institutional decision that employees should not be offerred access to any Covid-19 mRNA vaccine. I am (pretending to be) confused. I mean, if the vaccines could protect patients from being infected by staff members and they were safe to give to staff members, why wouldn’t you do everything possible (like a mandate) to ensure they receive them?

The only possible reason for the action above is that either OSUMC leadership recently discovered that the vaccines: a) do not work or b) are not safe. I think you would agree that, of the two possible answers, the only one that makes sense to explain this abrupt change in policy is B) they are not safe. I say this because if they were safe but instead just didn’t really work very well, Ohio State would not have the incentive to divorce themselves so abruptly and strongly from the recommendations of our benevolent federal government. I believe such an action would pretty quickly and negatively impact federal research funding by the NIH. It is my belief that agency’s money kept the nations 126 major academic medical centers in line throughout Covid, as those CEO’s and Deans are well aware that NIH retaliation in terms of rejecting grant funding if they “dissent” is real and happens (inflated reimbursements from the gov’t was another one of course).

I asked the brave browser AI, “why is Ohio State Medical Center no longer offering Covid-19 vaccines to its employees?” Two sentences jumped out:

  • “Based on the provided search results, it appears that Ohio State Medical Center did offer COVID-19 vaccines to its employees at one point.”
  • “Without further information or clarification from Ohio State Medical Center, it’s difficult to provide a definitive answer on why they may not be offering COVID-19 vaccines to their employees.”

So it must be the case that Ohio State leadership somehow found themselves a stronger financial disincentive to subjecting employees to Covid-19 vaccine injection. Where would such a disincentive come from? Answer: lawsuits. I also suspect that fear of worsening staff shortages from disability and/or death further disrupting operations played a role as well (as you will learn below).

This new policy action (taken very quietly) is absolutely dam breaking to me in terms of progress towards the truth about the mRNA platform getting out to the public. It is also appears ethically reprehensible, i.e. the institution made the decision to keep jabbing the public with a toxic and lethal vaccine while becoming aware that same vaccine is either exposing them to unmanageable legal risks and/or is disrupting their operations by negatively impacting the health of their workforce. Welcome to dystopia.

To see the rest of this article click here.

Continue Reading

Trending

X