CDC Changes Guidelines on COVID-19
And admits to no mistakes
Just a quick rough article for the moment; I have heard several people speak about this and wanted to vent about it a little in my own words. From NPR on Twitter:
Not a huge overhaul? Half-true. It is a serious admission couched in weak language to cover their ass. Admitting failure is not on the menu. Chris Martenson had an excellent response to this here. I found his article only after writing most of this—apologies for any repetition.
I want to address a few things from the media release of the CDC: CDC streamlines COVID-19 guidance to help the public better protect themselves and understand their risk.
Protection provided by the current vaccine against symptomatic infection and transmission is less than that against severe disease and diminishes over time, especially against the currently circulating variants.
The data hasn’t changed, nor has any of the science behind these products. The waning efficacy was known early in the rollout of the products. It was known early to those paying attention to the signals that upon the first dose of either Moderna or Pfizer vaccine and before the second, that there was there was a period of increased risk of infection. Boosters seemingly also appear to be producing similar negative efficacy.
Remember that this is a CDC that we know never monitored these products as it had previously promised it would. Sure, they didn’t outright take down their adverse reporting system, but the facts here are simple: there have been more adverse events in their reporting system than any vaccine product in the history of medicine. The swine flu vaccine was ended over much less.
It is important not to overlook that the CDC also stated in the new guidelines that the vaccinated and unvaccinated should be given the same guidance going forward. Is this not an implicit admission that there is no difference, as far as they can attest to, between being vaccinated or unvaccinated if their recommendations are the same for both? This change comes just two months after the FDA approved the Covid-19 injections for children as young as 6 months: meaning children of ages who are at no significant risk of the disease yet at a higher risk from the products. If then there is no difference between how the unvaccinated and vaccinated should be treated, then why are the recommendations continuing with children?
Let’s look further into how out of touch these changes are still; italics and bold are used for my own purposes.
On Vaccination
The rates of COVID-19–associated hospitalization and death are substantially higher among unvaccinated adults than among those who are up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, particularly adults aged ≥65 years (5,7). Emerging evidence suggests that vaccination before infection also provides some protection against post–COVID-19 conditions,† and that vaccination among persons with post–COVID-19 conditions might help reduce their symptoms (8).
In standing with their trend since the pandemic began, the CDC continues to lie and obfuscate the truth. Deaths and hospitalizations are not higher in the unvaccinated. Some may continue to play this game of vaccine roulette with mRNA vaccines that turn your body into a toxic spike protein factory, but for many of us, that ship has sailed. We will not let the world sit on its hands and forget how those in positions of authority got this all wrong.
Vaccine trials were set up in a way to produce the illusion of certain results
Danish Study clearly showed no mortality benefit for the public with the novel products:
The pandemic of the unvaccinated? False.
On Prophylaxis:
Preexposure prophylaxis. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against severe outcomes is lower in persons who are immunocompromised than in those who are not, and persons who are immunocompromised and have COVID-19 are at increased risk for intensive care unit admission and death while hospitalized, irrespective of their vaccination status (11,12). Preexposure prophylaxis with Evusheld¶ can help protect persons with moderate to severe immunocompromise who might not mount an adequate immune response after COVID-19 vaccination, as well as persons for whom COVID-19 vaccination is not recommended because of their personal risk for severe adverse reactions. In addition to early antiviral treatment if infected, persons who are moderately or severely immunocompromised can benefit from COVID-19 preexposure prophylactic medication to help prevent severe COVID-19 illness, as an adjunct to up-to-date vaccination for themselves and their close contacts, early testing, nonpharmaceutical interventions, and prompt access to treatment if they are infected.
What is Evusheld you ask? This is the first I am hearing of it and went ahead and looked up the patent on it. Owner, AstraZeneca, makers, and distributors of the UK mRNA vaccine product. When you’re making bank for a lackluster vaccine you might as well get in on the prophylaxis market, right? From the FDA fact sheet of the Evusheld, page 2:
EVUSHELD is investigational because it is still being studied. There is limited information known about the safety and effectiveness of using EVUSHELD for pre-exposure prophylaxis for prevention of COVID-19.
So this drug is currently under investigation and being studied, there is limited information on its safety and effectiveness (just like the vaccine products were under EUA), and it is being recommended under EUA as prophylaxis. Yet, other products, widely used and with safety and effectiveness data like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin appear nowhere in the CDC’s new guidelines for preexposure. Also not included are recommendations to get adequate sunlight (or vitamin D supplementation) and Zinc: key vitamins in which deficiencies correlate with poor covid-19 outcomes. Evusheld is also another injectable product that must be administered by others and not something someone can proactively go out and obtain for themselves. This also means that even if it worked for its intended purposes, it is neither cost-effective for the public at large nor a widely accessible form of prophylaxis, especially when compared to cheap, well-tolerated alternatives and vitamins.
Campaign against ivermectin documented by one of the central critical care doctors advocating and proscribing it successfully to patients:
Vitamin D association with poor covid-19 outcomes is so obvious that a cat notices:
On Treatment:
Medications to treat COVID-19. Antiviral medications (Lagevrio [molnupiravir], Paxlovid [nirmatrelvir and ritonavir], and Veklury [remdesivir]) and monoclonal antibodies (bebtelovimab) are available to treat COVID-19 in persons who are at increased risk for severe illness,** including older adults, unvaccinated persons, and those with certain medical conditions†† (13). Antiviral agents reduce risk for hospitalization and death when administered soon after diagnosis. The federal Test to Treat initiative facilitates rapid, no-cost access to oral COVID-19 treatment for eligible persons who receive a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.§§ Recent expansion of prescribing authority of Paxlovid to pharmacists intends to further facilitate access.¶¶ Continued efforts are needed to reduce racial and ethnic differences in receipt of monoclonal antibody therapies (14) and disparities in dispensing rates for oral antiviral prescriptions by community social vulnerability (15)
All the above are treatments for Covid-19 that are now recommended by the CDC. These treatments include Mulnupiravir, Remdesivir, monoclonal antibodies, and the over-the-counter prescription Paxlovid. What are these drugs that are being recommended?
Mulnupirvarir is a product distributed by Merck. Merck is also the manufacturer of ivermectin. One can easily imagine why they might have an incentive to downplay the efficacy of a drug they no longer can make much money on in order to make money on something new. Those incentives could perhaps be strong enough to encourage a propaganda war against their own novel prize-winning product. Remarks from Trial Site News on Molnupiravir:
This reckless approval might have been influenced by the UK government’s February 2021 promise 10 to fast track certain COVID-19 treatments, including Molnupiravir.
At this point, one should not be surprised by what was not tested, according to MHRA1:
“Carcinogenicity studies with molnupiravir have not been conducted.”
“No drug interactions have been identified based on the limited available data.”
“No clinical interaction studies have been performed with molnupiravir.”
Doctors continue to warn about the risks of Molnupiravir11.
The concerns about the global catastrophic danger of Molnupiravir12 have not been addressed.
Further evidence against its use was also documented in this article. Trial Site News reports that the NEJM study on Molnupiravir contains fabricated data and that early studies document serious harms including but not limited to, the mutation of the Sars-Cov-2 virus in the affected patient, elimination of neutralizing antibodies, and potential leukemia risks.
Paxlovid is manufactured by nonother than Pfizer. I’m beginning to wonder if there is a trend in this double dipping in medical profits. naah, that can’t be. Pharmacists, who are not doctors, have been granted the ability to prescribe the medication Paxlovid by the FDA. In the fact sheet for Paxlovid, the FDA is clear about the risks of recommending the drug to patients with very specific medical history information. This information would not be available to a pharmacist. So why in the hell did FDA permit them to prescribe the drug? I’d say it’s because their buddies at Pfizer asked for that consideration and they agreed like the willfully corrupt agency that they are. There is money and future jobs on the table after all.
Remdesivir I covered already (here), but the short of it is that it was produced with extension financing from the federal government therefore the stake they have in finding a use for it is a significant incentive.
Monoclonal antibodies in the list are the outlier compared to the other treatments recommended by the CDC. They do work and help with patients experiencing severe illness due to Sars-Cov-2. What happened here is sinister in a different way. Once Biden was elected, the federal government started controlling access to monoclonal antibodies, effectively cutting off access to patients in states like Florida. The drug is costly at $2,100 per dose and is best for the most severe cases from what I can tell.
Never Again
I wanted to share the following post from a mother who has experienced more than most of us. I believe there is at least something that she has experienced that each of us can empathize with as having experienced ourselves or having known someone who has.
At the end of the thread she gets to the crux of the matter: she wants an apology and assurances that what has been done in response to covid-19 can never be done again.
This is a sentiment I and many others share. There is a major problem here, however. The science has never changed regarding these novel products. It is the process by which science is done and truth determined that has changed. It was changed by fiat, by commandment. In science normally you debate competing hypotheses. Normally we use past knowledge to understand what should be done in the present, rather than recklessly charge ahead with new novel solutions. An example here would be lockdowns and masks, of which no strong body of evidence existed to promote their effective use prior to the pandemic. Treating patients with available medicines that target the symptoms is also a standard practice of care.
It is my belief that more people were harmed and more people have died due to the response to covid-19 by authorities than from the virus itself. It was the bureaucratic process by which the pandemic was handled that allowed the pandemic to continue as long as it did, drive the evolution of new variants and prolong the crisis. The lockdowns, masking, and social distancing created degrees of isolation that society has never experienced before. This obviously led to an increase in depression and substance abuse as a direct consequence. If one were to truly quantify the deaths that occurred as a direct result of economic changes and all the others due to the response to covid, I guarantee that the results would point the finger at the policies and their advocates.
In an ordinary world where the process of ascertaining the truth and acting upon it worked properly, we would also have a media that asks questions and honestly seeks answers to those questions. Science and open debate do not square with the media we do have that goes to the authorities and repeats what they say as gospel. This is a status quo that must end. This is not a conservative issue. This is not a liberal issue. This is an issue about truth and trust. It is about who we are going to trust in the future with our health and why we should trust them.
Anthony Fauci, Debra Birx, and others used their bureaucratic powers to undermine doctors. Doctors have had their medical licenses threatened. And medical boards, hospitals, and pharmacies were weaponized against doctors and interfered with the doctor-patient relationship. Lives were most assuredly lost due to this behavior. None of this is being admitted to out loud, and no apologies are being made. We must demand they be made and that those in authority within the organizations that demanded the public trust must own up to their mistakes. Otherwise, this will happen again. We will have a world that includes more gain of function research, more rushed products to solve a problem created by hubris, and we will continue to be lead by the same people directly responsible for the crisis.
Director Walensky recently announced that the CDC will, “reorganize the agency” after admission that their response to covid fell short. That is the most these people are willing to admit. They did not fail, they did not lie, they did not undermine the practicing of medicine by doctors, they did not force people out of jobs with mandates they approved of, nor did their recommendations to shut down the economy for weeks which turned into months cause more harm than good. No. They simply fell short. That is what they are willing to admit. In their plan to reorganize, just like every institution left standing has done, plan form an equity office. As if that should be the chief concern of the CDC.
For those who believe the truth always rises to the surface, they may be half right. The correct narrative is rising to the surface regarding SARS-CoV-2 and the injectable products produced for it. However, what is most definitely not happening is a reckoning with that truth. Authorities are not owning up to their mistakes, and they are pretending that things have changed and that it was their recommendations that are getting us out of the pandemic. Acolytes of their prescriptions haven’t changed their minds on the pandemic: their decisions to vaccinate themselves or their treatment of their neighbors based on vaccination status. No, they go along with the wind of the authority. I’m curious what stories will come from this announcement of previously ostracized family members being requested back into the fold now that the CDC says it is acceptable to associate with them again.
The CDC’s new guidance offers us nothing more except a continuation of bad advice and public PR coverage of their own failures. There should be a serious reckoning amongst all fields of medicine that went along with bogus claims that could not have been demonstrated with the evidence available at the time claims were made. We also need legislative changes and any politician that is for “letting this go” must be replaced by someone else. We need trials of a Nuremberg scope and quality to truly address the activity that has become the new norm in the institutions of medicine within the United States and abroad. This must be extended to include individuals within every relevant institution and organization. And the experts: doctors, scientists, independent researchers, and journalists who have been correct more often than not on Sars-Cov-2, policies, and products must be vindicated for their efforts.