Angela Weiss/Getty Images
© 2023 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
When in the history of vaccines have we seen the CDC put out information showing that young males who get a specific shot temporarily approved by the FDA are up to 200 times more likely to suffer from heart inflammation as a side effect? As crazy as that outcome is, even zanier is that even after these revelations, nothing is being done to prevent colleges from forcing young adults to assume such risk for a virus that poses no statistically significant clinical danger to them.
Yesterday, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices finally held its emergency meeting to discuss the emerging evidence of myocarditis cases among newly vaccinated teens and young adults. The group conceded that there is a "likely association" between vaccination of young people, particularly males, and myocarditis.
"Clinical presentation of myocarditis cases following vaccination has been distinct, occurring most often within one week after dose two, with chest pain as the most common presentation," said Dr. Grace Lee, who chairs the committee's safety group.
ACIP published an updated presentation showing striking data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System indicating an elevated risk among people under 30 years old — the very people who are not susceptible to serious illness from COVID. The data for 18- to 24-year-old males showed as much as a 200-fold increase in myocarditis cases within seven days of the second dose over the background rate of everyday myocarditis occurrence.
I expected to see a follow-up statement with the CDC recommending the FDA pull authorization for the vaccine among younger people, not to mention a cease-and-desist notice to all private and public entities forcing teens to get vaccinated for a summer job or entry into college. Instead … crickets!
The government establishment is needlessly imposing an experimental mRNA vaccine on people who are not threatened by the virus. Also, this is just one side effect we are now observing from data that is likely under-reported due to the cumbersome process (and threat of prosecution for falsification) doctors must navigate to report adverse events.
When have we ever done something like this in all our medical history? Typically, a novel vaccine this experimental that has already proven to come with side effects would be pulled from the market by a mile. Yet it is still being forced down the throats of youngsters through endless taxpayer-funded marketing and even coercion.
In fact, not only was ACIP silent on the call to action that should have been engendered by its findings, it continues to recommend use of the vaccine even for those who get myocarditis after the first dose!
This is insane. @CDCgov ACIP is suggesting if a kid has heart injury from dose 1 of #CovidVaccine go ahead and consider dose 2 if the kid\u2019s heart has healed - I am speechless . What parent or doctor in their right mind would allow such a thing?pic.twitter.com/RA7r3AbzeW— Philip Holloway \ud83d\ude0a (@Philip Holloway \ud83d\ude0a) 1624471022
They note the doctor should "consider proceeding" with the second dose of the shot, even after a patient suffers myocarditis from the first shot, so long as the heart has recovered!
But again, for what? To what end? How could something like a cold for young adults justify such risk we never assume in any other experimental product?
Because the "system" demands it.
Just consider the fact that on Monday, a number of internet sleuths helped publicize guidance from the WHO that children under 18 are not recommended to get the vaccine. That guidance had been on the website for several months, but the minute it was made famous, the WHO modified the language:
Here's the "before" & "after" on the WHO's recommendation re: vaccinating children against C19.\n\n"Before" today's revision - image on the left. Source:\nhttps://web.archive.org/web/20210622012217/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice\u00a0\u2026\n\n"After" today's revision - image on right. Source: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice\u00a0\u2026pic.twitter.com/StWofQOWLj— Emma Woodhouse \ud83d\ude01 (@Emma Woodhouse \ud83d\ude01) 1624404180
The WHO underwent a similar flip on asymptomatic transmission and mask-wearing after its initial non-political guidance was publicized. In May 2020, the WHO said that asymptomatic spread was "very rare." Then, like any time a major scientific figure reveals the truth, the WHO suddenly recanted that position when the media raised a howl. But the "experts" never explained where the evidence exists to show major community spread through asymptomatic individuals. However, the subsequent research all backed up the original scientifically grounded assertion before the political science kicked in.
Likewise, with regard to universal masking, the WHO initially advised against healthy people wearing masks in a community setting, even going so far as to call it a "false sense of security."
"The wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks," wrote the WHO in the April 6, 2020, guidance. On June 5, it reiterated that there is no evidence to suggest masks help, but reversed course anyway due to political pressure. Despite its warning countries to do further research, especially with children wearing masks, not a single randomized controlled trial has shown masks to work in the ensuing months, yet the policy was never changed, just as with asymptomatic spread and vaccine side effects.
The questions everyone must ask: If they are willing to lie to us on these questions, how can we take anything else about the virus and vaccines for granted? For example, who is to say there are no long-term concerns about health risks from this vaccine given that there were never any long-term trials conducted before essentially making this vaccine mandatory in many aspects of the workplace and culture?
The advisory panel shockingly concluded that the benefits of receiving a shot still "clearly outweigh" the risks. However, we already know that unvaccinated children are still less at risk than vaccinated young adults and 100 times less at risk than vaccinated 75+-year-olds! And that doesn't account for the fact that the CDC's own data show that 45% of the small number of hospitalizations blamed on COVID were likely incidental and really driven by other ailments. Plus, as of March, over 40% of those ages 4-49 were already infected. Not only does that fact make vaccination 100% risk and zero benefit, there are several studies that show those already previously infected have more common and severe reactions to the vaccine.The only possible way to understand the benefit of experimenting on children outweighing the risks is if you are getting rich off turning a generation of children into lab rats.
Want to leave a tip?
We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Blaze Podcast Host
Daniel Horowitz is the host of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz” and a senior editor for Blaze News.