CDC says no vaccine-death link?
According to the CDC, nobody dies from the vaccine. When you look at the following site, the whole thing reads like propaganda.
NO Link between vaccine and deaths, is the continuous theme on the CDC site.
cdc: ''To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.''
ed: If more than one person can die shortly after taking the vaccine, that IS a pattern.
And if there really isn't a 'pattern', that is a 'pattern' in itself that indicates that the vaccine can be indiscriminate in causing the deaths of people. That would indicate that some component within the vaccine can interact differently with different people, their biology, their genetic makeup, or health conditions.
If a mass-shooter goes out and shoots people without any pattern, does that mean that he didn't kill anyone?
When no pattern is detected, it can also mean that the formulae for detecting patterns is flawed in itself and that all relevant variables haven't been considered.
''VAERS accepts reports of any adverse event following vaccination, even if it is not clear the vaccine caused the problem.''
ed: This sort of statement is a clear example of exonerating the vaccine even if there isn't enough evidence of do so. Keep in mind that even though there is no clear evidence that A cause B, there is also no clear evidence that it DIDN'T.
For a statement like that to be made, all that has to be shown is that there can be other possible causes as well. This can be done perpetually.
Sorry, your honour, but Joe can't be guilty even though Joe was present at everyone of the murders, because others were present as well. - though the same others were not present at all the murders even though Joe was.
''Anaphylaxis after COVID-19 vaccination is rare. If this occurs, vaccination providers can effectively and immediately treat the reaction.''
ed: This distracts our attention from the fact that it can occur later when the vaccination providers aren't around to 'effectively and immedately treat the reaction.' or from a growing number of cases where people still died after such 'effective' treatment.
''Reports of death to VAERS following vaccination do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the death.''
ed: This sort of statement exonerates the vaccine even if there isn't enough evidence to do so. So long as there may be links between deaths and the vaccine, such a statement cannot necessarily mean the vaccine did NOT cause the death.
''A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.''
One can say that the vaccination doesn't contribute to the deaths of anyone if one can say that the persons genetic, biological, health condition, etc, might have contributed to their negative reaction to the vaccine.
Let's not forget that whilst preexisting health conditions can cause death, there are many with these preexisting conditions whom didn't die from the vaccine. So that either means that there is another factor, either with the vaccine, or the person, or both, that caused him to die.
In this case, the vaccine should not have been adminstered to them. But in the event that there is insufficient evidence as to how different people would react to the vaccine, it is the vaccine that led, if not 'caused', their deaths. It is a play on words. You can say it didn't 'contribute' (because there may be other causes), you can say it didn't 'cause' (because it is not designed to kill), but you can't say it didn't LEAD to it (interact with other factors within the person to kill her or him.)
To say that a vaccine doesn't kill is a silly statement to make if one cannot prove that the different ways it interacts with people won't kill them.
The above statement depends on a truism - that the vaccine was not designed to kill. Yes, most know that, or think that's true. But the ignorance of how the different factors within a person that leads to different reactions is that which can make it lethal in some cases. This sort of statement distracts people from that fact.
It is no different from saying, the car did not contribute to the death of the person whom it ran over. The cause of the person's death was that he wasn't Ironman. So it's his fault, not the car.
Sum
The CDC Page on this doesn't acknowledge any of the points raised above, and which is why i comes across as obviously less than objective, and hence, biased or propagandic. It is such blatant skewing of information that is 'contributing to', if not 'causing', the production of conspiracy theories, be they true or false, on the matter isn't it.
And let's keep in mind that prior to China's latest viral import, vaccinations were said to be safe because, (see picture below)
The fact of the matter is, this 'vaccine' has been rushed out after a year without all of the above measures. The '3 phases of clinical trials' are now being carried out, except that is on a global population, not volunteers in a study.
If just a year is enough for a vaccine to be globally promoted, then why is it not similar for previous vaccines that took years?
The fact that it took years previously for a vaccine to be approved as safe, but only a year now, either means that this pandemic is easy to figure out - which it isn't according to the scientists themselves - or that aliens have flown down from the skies and intervened and given the scientists the solution, or that they're desperate, or that there is truly some sort of conspiracy going on as the Conspiracists keep saying.
''Millions of people in the United States have received COVID-19 vaccines, and these vaccines will undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.''
What the above CDC statement means is that the 'intensive safetey monitoring' with the vaccine was previously applied to clinical trials on a few thousand individuals. But since this prolonged clinical trials were bypassed, they are simply applying it to the global population whom are now part of this trial and therefore subject to the same 'intensive safety monitoring'.
But the point of such 'intensive safety monitoring' is to ensure a vaccine is fine before it hits the global streets, not to see if it is fine once it does. So that statement is a false reassurance that the vaccine is fine when it is actually still at its clinical stage. Like i said, if it takes such a short time to produce a vaccine, then why, pray tell, was there up to 15 years for previous vaccine research?
I'm not skeptical of the vaccine. I'm skeptical of human intelligence, and the optimality with which it can work out of desperation. And such skepticism is further exacerbated by the obvious skewing on information of the virus to the vaccine by the Corporate News and Social Media. I'm not an 'anti-vaxxer', just a logical thinker.
The moral of the story is, people either lie for an agenda, or become blind to the truth when preoccupied with a particular goal, or have yet to completely comprehend a phenomenon. In all of these cases, it is the truth, and sometimes, lives, that is sacrificed.
#chinavirus #chinavirus19 #covid #covid19 #conspiracy #NWO #NewWorldOrder #india
Comments
Post a Comment