It’s finally happened: the dam of jab omertà has broken wide open. While you read this morning’s update, remember that one of the New York Times’ primary functions is to referee the liberal Overton Window — what is acceptable for progressives to think about and to talk about. And yesterday, the New York ran this astonishing non-paywalled, long-form, magazine-style article:
Safe and effective! Prepare to experience a scorching flash of outrage. “Even the best vaccines,” the New York Times somberly informed its readers, “produce rare but serious side effects.” Now they tell us. Following the classic journalistic formula, the article began with a human interest anecdote, a vaccine-injured scientist, Michelle Zimmerman:
The story immediately shifted to the pathetic, problematic PREP Act, the federal law immunizing vaccine manufacturers and providing a fig leaf of a “compensation” process for vaccine-injured people, people who trusted the government and whose previously normal lives now lie in devastated biological wreckage. I happen to know a lot about the PREP Act, more on that in a moment. Here’s how the Times accurately described PREP’s woeful failure:
The Times’ first expert, a Yale immunologist, admitted what we all know to be true but which corporate media has so far steadfastly ignored, if not outright denied: that vaccine injuries are “just completely ignored and dismissed and gaslighted.” But ignored by whom? And, who is doing the gaslighting? The Times avoided naming anyone in particular.
Rather, the Times went to great effort to highlight the good intentions of public health officials. It quoted former FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, safely retired as of February, who mused she wished she’d done more for vaccine injured people:
This is a promising start, but what about the dead? Never mind! Here we find the first serious gap in the article’s coverage. The Times avoided this difficult issue, only briefly referring to possible deaths. But maybe it was too much to expect in this cautious, tentative first step toward officially acknowledging that Houston, we may have a problem.
My goodness! How could all this anti-progressive gaslighting and illiberal lack of sympathy have possibly happened? How can the Times reconcile this long period of denial and deception? Because it’s just so darn difficult to track vaccine injuries, and because we need even bigger government, that’s how:
I could give them some ideas of what to look for. It’s not really that hard. But I digress.
You see, covid vaccine injuries are brand new types of injuries, so what can you expect from busy, hardworking scientists? Dr. Woodcock explained, “I mean, you’re not going to find ‘brain fog’ in the medical record or claims data, because it doesn’t have a good research definition.” The former FDA Commissioner insisted, “It isn’t, like, malevolence on their part.”
It’s not like malevolence. It is malevolence. It’s like deliberate institutional neglect. But they meant well. “Federal officials,” the Times explained, “worry that even a whisper of possible side effects feeds into misinformation spread by a vitriolic anti-vaccine movement.” But health agencies’ duty is to pursue the truth, even when it's complex or inconvenient, not to curate a simplified narrative for their perverse perception of an infantilized general public.
The Times rounded up a large group of pro-jab medical professionals, who are now vaccine injured, which the Times insisted it has been following for over a year now:
One standout example is Dr. Gregory Poland, 68, the editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, who can’t shake a continuous loud whooshing sound in his ears from the moments after his first shot. He’s getting no help from the medical establishment. In despair that he might “never hear silence again,” Dr. Poland has “sought solace in meditation and his religious faith.”
Why have we never heard from Dr. Poland before? For Heaven’s sake, he runs the most prominent vaccine-related journal in the world.
If even Dr. Poland, surely one of the world’s chief vaccine advocates, feel stifled, dismissed, and suppressed, what hope can regular folks have to be heard? Even Dr. Poland stands alone on Gaslighting Island. As the Times accurately reported, the CDC admits only four serious “but rare” side effects, and two of those are related to the now-recalled Johnson & Johnson jab.
Not accidentally, the Times painted a narrative picture of complete systemic failure of the public health institutions.
It wasn’t just Dr. Poland either. Among others, the article also mentioned Dr. Ilka Warshawsky, a 58-year-old pathologist, who said she lost all hearing in her right ear after a Covid booster shot. It sounded worse than unilateral hearing loss. One of her therapists recently told her she might never be able to live independently again. But hearing loss is not any recognized side effect of Covid vaccination. Dr. Warshawsky remains ineligible for compensation under the CDC’s list of recognized injuries. Just like Dr. Poland.
The article was packed with pro-jab points. Virus-related injuries are worse. And it’s just a tiny number of people with each type of vaccine injury. But … what about the cumulative effect of all these ‘rare’ injuries? When you start to add up all these various rare adverse events, the overall picture starts to look a lot more concerning. If there are a wide range of potential side effects, each affecting a small slice of the population, the aggregate number of impacted individuals could be quite significant. And not rare.
But nobody’s looking at that. I’ve never seen that question raised in any official forum. Nor did the Times ask in its story. Still, the article points that way.
☕️ THE DAM BREAKS ☙ Saturday, May 4, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Astonishing NYT article breaks open the jab denial dam; I'm suing the federal government; half the Senate opposes WHO amendments; Lancet study fails to infect; new city offers hope; and lots more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
