From Proponents to Critics: How the Scientific Community is Turning Against the COVID Vaccine


by Jeff Childers

A story popped up in Bloomberg yesterday with the remarkable headline, “China is gunning for the chief scientist of its COVID vaccine project, accusing him of ‘serious discipline and law violations’.

Last week, China’s National People’s Congress (ironically, the ‘NPC’) tossed Yang Xiaoming from its ranks of other members in good standing. The NPC is a large, 3,000-member parliament including business, state, and local officials. Among other things, it elects China’s Communist Party’s Central Committee.

In China, this kind of official shunning almost always signals the person is under a corruption investigation. According to the Global Times, Dr. Yang has been linked to “corruption in pharmaceuticals” and issues related to vaccine research and development.

The well-known Dr. Yang, 62, happens to be the chairman of Sinopharm, one of China’s biggest pharma companies. Sinopharm developed and widely promoted the Chinese covid vaccine. Yang himself publicly pushed the shots and wouldn’t shut up about how safe and effective the shots were.

Dr. Yang’s cancellation is big news for Chinese folks. It is comparable to how excited Americans would be over news of Pfizer Chairman Albert Bourla’s firing and federal investigation. Chinese social media is burning up with speculation about the reasons for Dr. Yang’s ejection and potential criminal investigation.

The news about Yang arrived amidst an expanding crackdown on corruption in China’s pharmaceutical industry. Since March, at least thirty-three “key” figures in China’s medical/scientific establishment, many with with pandemic connections, have either been investigated or disciplined, including several directors of top hospitals, university management, and top officials in local medical and health systems.

Even though nobody knows much else about Dr. Yang’s situation, and even though its been three year since the vaccine rollout, lots of regular Chinese folks are fretting Yang’s cancellation means the Chinese covid vaccine — which was not mRNA based — has got something wrong with it.

The Yang story shows how governments may have been suppressed debate about the jabs, but the fires of controversy have kept simmering and have never been extinguished. Three years post-vaccine, the zeitgeist continues evolving into stronger and stronger forms. True, the usual state actors are stubbornly clinging to their official positions. They keep on defending the jabs, even more enthusiastically than do the jab makers.

But the international conversation is continuing to change and grow in unexpected ways.

For example, the trip to anti-vaxx town keeps getting shorter and shorter, and more significantly, it is a one-way trip:

  1. Nobody regrets not taking the shot.
  2. Many prominent, previously pro-jab social media influencers are becoming anti-vaxx or at least vaxx-questioning.
  3. More health professionals are recanting and apologizing for pushing the shots; but no anti-vaccine doctors are recanting and embracing the needles.

Doctors who opposed covid jabs from the beginning, but otherwise held traditional vaccine views, are becoming more anti-vaxx in general. Like Dr. McCullough:

image 9.png

Although obsequious corporate media is still giving pharma foot massages, the side-effects cat is out of the jab bag in conservative media, which is all over the jab story like stink on a monkey. The conversation practically ubiquitous now on conservative platforms, if not a daily feature. Here’s a recent example from the Epoch Times:

image 8.png

Here’s another recent example from Gateway Pundit, featuring a beautiful, young, athletic model, now suffering badly from an inflamed heart:

image 14.png

The scientific community is schizophrenically splitting in two wildly-divergent camps. The much smaller, but very active pro-pharma camp is busily publishing large survey studies, usually modeled, diligently trying to disconnect the jabs from excess deaths and the unusual trends in mortality and morbidity.

But the vast majority of academic scholarship can be fairly characterized as critical or even negative toward the jabs. In the last year, despite major difficulties in getting published, the literature has seen major developments in identifying potential mechanisms of mRNA harm, and in the way spike protein hurts people. On top of that, hundreds, possibly thousands, of case reports have been published with doctors reporting various uncommon injuries occurring right after the shots.

Consider this carefully worded but very significant, peer-reviewed study, published last week in top journal Vaccine:

image 10.png

The massive study analyzed almost 100 million records of vaccinated folks from ten countries that participated in a vaccine safety monitoring program between December 2020 and August 2023. The researchers first confirmed finding statistical safety signals showing serious side-effects they labeled “already-recognized”:

  • Guillain-Barré syndrome,
  • cerebral venous sinus thrombosis,
  • acute disseminated encephalomyelitis,
  • myocarditis, and
  • pericarditis.

Next, the study, which had a whopping thirty-six authors — safety in numbers! — also identified some more potential statistical safety signals, for other types of injuries not already recognized by the various health agencies:

  • transverse myelitis,
  • Bell’s palsy,
  • febrile and generalized seizures,
  • thrombocytopenia and immune thrombocytopenia,
  • pulmonary embolism,
  • cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and
  • splanchnic vein thrombosis.

The real problem must be much bigger than this. Keep two things in mind. First, this study only counted side effects that happened a short time after taking the shots (42 hours), so it automatically excluded all slower-developing injuries like cancer. Second, while they emphasized the risk of any particular side effect is rare (or “relatively rare”), what is the cumulative risk of some kind of severe side effect?

The authors avoided that difficult question. But, isn’t the cumulative risk really the most important question of all? While I suppose one could pick and choose one’s preferred injuries among the list of serious side effects, maybe Justin Bieber-style droopy face is better than Fetterman silly-speech syndrome, it’s not really so much about whether the benefits of the shots outweigh the risk of getting Bell’s palsy.

It’s about whether the risk of getting any kind of serious injury justifies taking the novel mRNA injection, which don’t stop infection, and can’t even promise to keep you out of the hospital.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Its to late, they cant exonerate themselves now.
They isolated our elderly to die alone.
The protocol for treatment was murder.
Caused massive economic damage.
Silenced and cancelled experts.
Told us not to hug our loved ones.
Ruined supply chains.
Locked us in our homes and put our favorite local places to shop eat and shop out of business.
2 full years of total lunacy, death counts rolling on cable television.

Kids now its bird flu that had a cure for the birds years ago. Hey use a diagnostic tool that was never meant to diagnose anything, murder millions of birds like you murdered millions of people with your bio-weapon.
comment image

Asswipe students still wearing masks FFS

Last edited 1 month ago by kitt