Why COVID vaccines are pushed so hard, but other promising treatments or studies of ill-effects aren't
If something pushes the agenda forward it gets fast tracked, pushed, praised, and lauded as proof, evidence, or supportive of the message.
If something doesn't add to the narrative it's dismissed, ridiculed, ignored, or brushed over as quickly a possible.
This happens almost all the time in politics and media (and elsewhere but these areas are where it's most obvious to those who look).
Since early 2020 COVID-19 has been the poster child that is paraded about by politicians and media to justify controls, limitations, restrictions, etc. placed on society. The more you buy into the narrative, the easier you are to manipulate.
Once the threat was identified and actually became a real risk the control started with the reasonable-sounding "15 days to slow the spread" and "flatten the curve".
When it was apparent that the public as a whole was buying into the fear narrative and would be compliant with health orders, the lockdowns got extended, and extended again, and again. Mask mandates became the next thing.
All the while those things which didn't support the narrative were pushed aside.
Early in the summer (or spring) of 2020 I'd read of studies that vitamin D was helpful in fighting COVID. But, no that didn't fit the fear message so those studies were ridiculed. COVID was something to fear and we don't know enough about it, so it's better to stay locked up inside and masked up.
September 2020 Dr. Anthony Fauci apparently said he believed vitamin D could help fight COVID, but he didn't elaborate on it, or reveal what he might have known. Most likely because it didn't push the need for a vaccine (and all the money that's associated with that).
A blog on Mercola brought this up (New Study Shows Vitamin D3 Can Inhibit COVID-19), and if that link doesn't work it cites two others
Newswise, September 9, 2021 - Vitamin D Emerges as Possible Treatment for COVID-19, Vitamin D biometabolites can inhibit enzymes necessary for replication and expansion of COVID-19
“Researchers on this study say their findings help explain a possible mechanism for why low vitamin D levels seem to promote COVID-19 infection and poor outcome in certain individuals. This correlates to other studies showing a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and poor disease outcomes. More studies and clinical trials are planned to test the efficacy of vitamin D and lumisterol as an antiviral therapeutic for COVID-19 in animals and humans.”
Did you notice the mention of "other studies"?
And did you notice the "more studies and clinical trials are planned"?
Why is it that more studies are planned (and will likely take years to pan out before any conclusive proof is given) for something so promising and inexpensive as vitamin D, but vaccines that were developed in less than a year and given emergency use authorization are now being pushed as required and mandated?
I hinted at the answer: Follow the money.
A couple weeks ago a coworker mentioned to me that his wife doesn't want the vaccine because she'd read that it can cause problems with menstrual cycles.
On the Dr. Mercola's blog today he mentioned that. Here's his blog post (which will likely disappear in a couple days as he's not leaving much up if it's too controversial)
"In the wake of ongoing complaints in numerous forums about women having trouble with their menstrual cycles after receiving a COVID vaccine, the National Institutes of Health has announced it will spend $1.67 million studying the issue.
"The NIH noted its concerns in an August 2, 2021, post on their website, and encouraged researchers to investigate reports of menstrual problems after the shots. The agency followed up August 30, 2021, with a formal announcement of the grant monies.
"While the NIH pointed out that “numerous factors can cause temporary changes in the menstrual cycle,” they added that “the new projects will build on existing research studies and leverage data from menstrual tracking applications to evaluate the potential impacts of COVID-19 vaccination on menstrual health among geographically and racially and ethnically diverse populations. One project will focus specifically on adolescents.”
"Five research facilities will conduct the investigations, looking at flow, cycle length, pain and other menstrual issues. “Several projects also seek to unravel the mechanisms underlying the potential effects of COVID-19 vaccines on the menstrual cycle by examining immune and hormonal characteristics in blood, tissue and saliva samples taken before and after COVID-19 vaccination,” the website says."
The referenced sites in the blog post are from the New York Post and a couple of NIH's pages.
NIH orders $1.67M study on how COVID-19 vaccine impacts menstrual cycle
NIH page COVID-19 Vaccines and the Menstrual Cycle
Don't hold your breath for a quick study. While the NIH does want reports of issues with menstrual cycles after taking the vaccine, part of the study is to find out how long the effects last. If there is an actual issue found with the menstrual cycle correlated to the vaccine, we probably won't hear about it for at least a year or more. That is, unless, more serious issues are found.
Big Pharma is big money. If money is to be made, they want to make it as fast as they can. Any potential loss of money needs to be delayed for as long as possible.
Who better to help push the need for vaccines than the politicians and the media, those who are frequently putting themselves in the public's eye?
How much money is going from the government to the vaccine manufacturers?
Why aren't vaccine's a single dose? I heard that was the intent, but apparently single doses caused too many negative side effects so it was broken into two doses. Of course that's also convenient because the company can get paid twice.
And with the vaccine not being as effective with new variants it's also convenient that boosters are now being talked about or pushed. More money to the manufacturers.
And make it required. That means nearly guaranteed money flowing to the companies.
And delay any studies that might interfere with a vaccine rollout and marketing push for as long as possible. Because as soon as the public realizes there are some real issues that are not being addressed the vaccines will lose their luster.
The media (at least at the reporting level) may not be in on the vaccine money directly, but they love fearmongering because it increases their viewership, and that increases their revenue.
Follow the money.
Yes, the pharmaceutical companies do make some good products. But they're also for-profit, publicly traded companies. They're in the business to make money for the company and its shareholders. They are not altruistic and benevolent. Your best interests are not in their best interest.
Similarly, the majority of politicians do not have your best interests in mind. They say they do, but that's to get them elected and stay in power. How often do politicians flip flop? How often do they blame others, the other side of the aisle, or other entities for their decisions or votes? How often do they side strictly with their party's agenda?
Even if the money isn't flowing directly to a politician, most of them love the power, authority, influence, and control they have...which is supported by money, often through campaign donations, PACs, and special interest groups/lobbies.
I don't know about other parts of the world, but in the United States the media, politicians, and national-level health agencies (CDC, NIH, FDA, etc.) tend to push towards the solutions that cost more money. State and local health and medical organizations follow the lead of the national. Doctors and medical organizations follow the directives of their national organizations. Hospital administration follows the money, and if money can be made with COVID you better believe they will do what they can to take advantage of that. It seems that any hospital, medical organization, doctor, or medical staff (including nurses) who does something that is contrary to the national narrative is at risk of ridicule, threats, and losing licensing.
Most medical professionals are in the profession because they really care and want to make a difference.
However, once you go up into the administration side it's generally more about the money. And the medical industry (not the doctors, PAs, nurses, staff, etc. on the front line) is how to market and sell to the medical providers the products with the most profit.
Money is not bad. It can be used for tremendous good.
But the love of money, and the power/authority/influence it buys, is what leads to corruption. And their is too much corruption in our government and many of the industries that receive money directly from the government.
Comments
Post a Comment