Listen to Article
Listen up children. Pay attention.
The CDC is going to “teach” you about the Facts of Vax, and twist them to their delight.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccines using the first ever injected gene therapy jab into the human body, the Messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, operate not by putting a weakened or inactivated germ into the body to provoke an immune response as do vaccines, but rather the new jab uses mRNA created in a laboratory to "teach" our cells how to make a protein that triggers an immune response.
Is the Jab Worth It?
JusttheNews.com reports, on 7 November, on a study published the week before by the CDC; that study purports to show that persons vaccinated with mRNA vaccines have a lower rate of COVID-19 re-infection than unvaccinated persons who had previously been infected (and thus were thought to have "natural immunity").
On the basis of that study, the CDC is recommending that everyone be vaccinated, even those who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection and have heretofore remained unvaccinated.
The only trouble is that this latest study contradicts a previous one, also touted by the CDC, which found no significant difference in protection between vaccination and natural immunity, and an Israeli study which concluded that "natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant – compared to – two-dose vaccine-induced immunity."
The article quotes several experts who take issue with the latest study and with the CDC's recommendation based on that study.
One, a Harvard Medical School epidemiologist, points out a "major statistical flaw" in the newer study, because it falsely portrayed hospitalized respiratory patients as "representative of the population," thereby rendering the odds ratio "wrong."
Another, immunologist Hooman Noorchashm (affiliated with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which has filed numerous legal challenges against vaccine mandates), called the new study "another teleological piece of propaganda" on the grounds that it ignored the vaccine from Johnson & Johnson and likely included recovered people in the vaxxed group.
And a former New York Times journalist, Alex Berenson, also finding fault with the odds ratio and noting that it was unclear whether enough naturally immune people had been hospitalized to have statistical significance, characterized the study as "meaningless gibberish that would never have been published if the agency did not face huge pressure to get people vaccinated."
TRENDPOST: This is hardly the first or only example of the CDC changing its tune; see "COVID FRAUDSTER" (18 May 2021) and "THE WALENSKY WAFFLE: DOING THE BACKTRACK SHUFFLE" (3 Aug 2021).
TRENDPOST: As Trends Journal has noted, when the CDC does a 180º reversal, or cherry-picks facts, or changes its definitions, or even alters facts or otherwise makes facts take a back seat to the agency's agenda, it's not being self-serving and dishonest, it's merely "evolving as the science evolves"; see "CDC MANIPULATES DATA TO SUPPORT NARRATIVE (AGAIN)" (14 Sep 2021), "CDC CHANGES TESTING TO ERASE 'BREAKTHROUGH' CASES" (25 May 2021), and "CDC VAX FACTS: IS THE TRUTH BEING TOLD?" (3 Aug 2021).
Support the Trends Journal with these great products