John Campbell on the New NYT Article Back Peddling the Vaxx

John Campbell Ph.D. speaks to a New York Times article which actually talks about damage done to people from the mRNA vaxx

Dr. Campbell does a good job here navigating what he actually thinks about this article with what can be said on YouTube, which he admits he doesn’t actually know at this point. Probably because Google, the owner of YouTube has become the most censorious organization since Joe Biden’s White House.

A few thoughts of our own:

Once upon a time I asked Stephen Coughlin if a news item in an MSM publication which leaned towards our understanding of events meant that we were winning, or at least gaining ground. His answer, (quoting from memory of course, so any error is mine) was that it means the government media complex will never allow us to be ahead of the public narrative. As I understood the answer, it means that the media in order to manipulate us for the purposes of the revolution, or COMINTERN or however you want to label the forces in action to remove our individuality, will say whatever part of the truth, or as much of it they need to, to stay ahead of the next lie. ‘Some of the vaccines you took might have been unsafe’ they tell us at the NYT. They do say the BioNTech is linked to an inflammation of the heart which is surprising as the emphasis seemed to be on the ones removed early like J&J. For those who have already forgotten, J&J is the same company that can’t seem to make talcum powder that doesn’t give you cancer. But as Diana West once said, Beware of anyone claiming to be from the inside who doesn’t tell you anything you don’t already know”.  It would be good to know if the NYT still pushes other mass line narrative attacks on the public like Carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic climate change and aliens are attacking our militaries and criticism of Islamic scripture is hate speech and so on and so on. Wierd that overpopulation isn’t on the list anymore isn’t it? I guess that would interfere with the mass immigration effort which is the actual plan to destroy Western civilization, the rest often seeming like a distraction from that.

The article is quite artful in its deceptiveness:

The officials each responded with “that very tired mantra: ‘But the virus is worse,’” Dr. Murphy recalled. “Yes, the virus is worse, but that doesn’t obviate doing research to make sure that there may be other options.”

1. No, the virus is not worse
2. It wouldn’t matter if it was, since the vaxx has been proven not only not to protect anyone from the virus, but to actually make it more likely they will get the disease. This from official Canadian Government statistics as it happens.

The NYT article actually reads more like a kind of self absolution though, than any kind of reveal of the actual nature or damage of the vaxx. While they do pick out one or two noteworthy victims, it would still be well within the realm of acceptable costs to most who convinced themselves the vaxx saved millions of lives.

The article mentions two principle people from the FDA. Janet Woodcock and Peter Marks.

From the article:

Marks:

Asked at a recent congressional hearing whether the nation’s vaccine-safety surveillance was sufficient, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said, “I do believe we could do better.”

Woodcock:

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies.

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

Same people not altogether that long ago. I mean when it mattered. I mean when people still were injecting this material and when many had not but could be coerced into doing so. When it actually mattered what these people said because it could influence their decision to take the shots as opposed to what they say once people stopped taking it and it doesn’t matter anymore:

This one is a little different and far far more horrifying. Dr. Marks said they sped up the approval process in order to make people more likely to take the insufficiently tested mRNA injections. And he says this like its a good thing.

Janet Woodcock compilation:

The article goes on to blame those of us skeptical about the safety or efficacy of the shots for the inability to properly research it:

The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has made it difficult for scientists, in and out of government, to candidly address potential side effects, some experts said. Much of the narrative on the purported dangers of Covid vaccines is patently false, or at least exaggerated, cooked up by savvy anti-vaccine campaigns.

Questions about Covid vaccine safety are core to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Citing debunked theories about altered DNA, Florida’s surgeon general has called for a halt to Covid vaccination in the state.

“The sheer nature of misinformation, the scale of misinformation, is staggering, and anything will be twisted to make it seem like it’s not just a devastating side effect but proof of a massive cover-up,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University.

That’s risible. The difficulty in researching a thing has nothing to do with what people think about the thing. If that was true, people would still believe rain came from holes in the firmament.

In other words, this NYT article starts to look like a fire-escape down from the gallows where these characters are beginning to look like they belong.