THE Florida Health Department has issued new guidance regarding mRNA vaccination against Covid-19. Based on an analysis of mortality, risk from heart disease within 28 days from vaccination increases by 84 per cent and therefore this group is now recommended against receiving those vaccines. This applies not only to the so-called ‘boosters’ but all mRNA vaccinations against Covid-19.
The Florida Health Department follows in the footsteps of health authorities in other countries. Denmark recently put an end to Covid vaccination for the under-50s. Even Australia has severely limited the availability of the vaccines for younger people. Only those between 16-30 with ‘complex, chronic, or severe medical conditions’ can now receive the vaccine. Remember, this is the country that chose to quarantine the unvaccinated only last year, despite already rising concerns over vaccine safety and clear indications that they do little if nothing to prevent infection.
In this context we should look also to the study recently published by Dr Aseem Malhotra, formerly a strong supporter of Covid-19 vaccination now coming to the conclusion that for the non-elderly population it does more harm than good. His two articles are available here and here.
Malhotra’s latter article addresses what he calls ‘pandemic misinformation’. Malhotra explains how four key drivers and seven sins lie behind the ‘medical misinformation mess’:
· Much published medical research is not reliable or is of uncertain reliability, offers no benefit to patients or is not useful for decision makers;
· Most healthcare professionals are not aware of this problem;
· Even if they are aware of this problem, most healthcare professionals lack the skills necessary to evaluate the reliability and usefulness of medical evidence;
· Patients and families frequently lack relevant, accurate medical evidence and skilled guidance at the time of medical decision making.
· Biased funding of research (that’s research that’s funded because it’s likely to be profitable, not beneficial for patients);
· Biased reporting in medical journals;
· Biased reporting in the media;
· Biased patient pamphlets;
· Commercial conflicts of interest;
· Defensive medicine;
· An inability of doctors to understand and communicate health statistics.
The censors (who call themselves ‘fact-checkers’) were quick to try to take down Malhotra’s careful analysis, not wasting a moment to attack other peer-reviewed studies in the process if their conclusions were contrary to what the censors are being paid to claim. This means that sharing this peer-reviewed material may get you banned by Facebook, Twitter and of course LinkedIn. The first censorship example already available may be seen here.
Even if infuriating, it is still informative to read through articles like this and objectively evaluate the reasoning, if it should be called by that name. Here is an example from the quoted article by Iria Carballo-Carbajal:
‘Malhotra’s article received more than 14,000 interactions on Facebook and Twitter, according to the social media analytics tool CrowdTangle. But his claims circulated more widely on social media (see examples here and here), as they were picked up by Children’s Health Defense, an organisation opposing vaccination, and outlets such as the Epoch Times and Washington Times, labelled as Questionable Sources by Media Bias Fact Check. Individuals who previously published misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines, like scientist Robert Malone and tech entrepreneur Steve Kirsch, also echoed the article.’
This is part of the introduction. It gives a glimpse of the pattern the censors always follow. This example is about casting doubt on the researcher’s ability or honesty through guilt by association; the author must be dishonest, bad or unreliable because others deemed dishonest, bad or unreliable have said the same. Other parts of this pattern include self-reference, straw man argumentation where the authors take it upon themselves to refute a statement no one has actually made, references to unidentified sources (‘a public health expert said . . .’) more often than not likely made up, misrepresentation of text or taking it out of context, argumentation from authority; in short the censors tend to use more or less every single logical fallacy and dishonest practice in the toolbox.
Florida’s Surgeon General Dr Joseph A Ladapo is clearly concerned with the health of the state’s residents and he acts in their interest without regard to the pandemic misinformation campaign driven by the Federal government, press and social media giants.
Ladapo is an honest and courageous man. I predict it will only be days, most probably only hours, until the censorship machine starts churning out pieces smearing and defaming him.
This article appeared in From Symptoms to Causes on October 8, 2022, and is republished by kind permission.
As Thorsteinn predicted, Twitter did censor Ladapo’s tweet on the matter. His tweet, below,
violated Twitter’s rules and when we tried to find it this is what came up:
The latest news is that the tweet was reinstated yesterday – see here!