.png){kind=tracking}
Dr. Ladapo was an early advocate for the mRNA vaccine. Citing
evidence and bucking the ‘consensus,’ he now advises against it for 18-
to 39-year-old men
John Fund
October 9, 2022
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, M.D., has recommended against Covid mNRA vaccines and boosters for 18- to 39-year-old men because of a heightened risk of death from heart problems. He cited extensive scientific evidence for this decision and then concluded, “Florida will not be silent on the truth.” Twitter promptly decided to censor him, saying his post “violated the Twitter rules,” though it later reposted his tweet:
Today, we released an analysis on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines the public needs to be aware of. This analysis showed an increased risk of cardiac-related death among men 18-39. FL will not be silent on the truth.
— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@FLSurgeonGen) October 7, 2022
Guidance: https://t.co/DcWZLoMU5E
Press Release: https://t.co/Y0r9yepi7F
The Scandinavian nations of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden all agree there are serious health concerns in giving existing Covid vaccines to younger people. You’d think leftists would pay attention to such impeccably progressive sources.
Denmark and Norway have banned Covid vaccines for non-seniors, and last month Sweden stopped recommending vaccines for 12- to 17-year-olds. All three countries have renowned public-health programs and aggressively promote best-practice treatments. They’ve been joined by Australia, which has drastically limited vaccines for those ages 16 to 30. Only those with “complex, chronic, or severe medical conditions” can now get jabbed.
Aseem Malhotra, M.D., is a London-based cardiologist who has published two articles in the peer-reviewed Journal of Insulin Resistance warning medical journals that vaccines may do more harm than good in some non-elderly population groups. Originally, he was one of the first to take two doses of the vaccine and a big supporter. Now he writes: “Pharmacovigilance systems and real-world safety data, coupled with plausible mechanisms of harm, are deeply concerning, especially in relation to cardiovascular safety.”
He also cites a significant rise in cardiac-arrest calls to ambulances in England in 2021 (an extra 14,000 compared with the number of 2020 calls). Similar data have emerged from Israel, he notes, in the 16- to 39-year-old age group, in which there was a 25 percent increase in heart attacks or cardiac arrests associated with the Pfizer vaccine but not linked to Covid-19.
Sherif Sultan, M.D., the president of the International Society of Vascular Surgeons, says that Dr. Malhotra’s “literature review and analysis is a cause for global concern.”
Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., of Stanford, one of the organizers of Great Barrington Declaration, which opposed lockdowns and urged focused protection for the vulnerable, concurs: “These papers should be considered carefully by all public health authorities.”
Malhotra observes that there’s a pattern censors use to decide how to discredit any Covid information that goes against the “consensus.” Sometimes they have powerful allies such as Anthony Fauci and former National Institute of Health director Francis Collins, who were caught trying to discredit as “fringe” the Great Barrington Declaration, though it was spearheaded by eminent doctors from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford.
Icelandic economist Thorsteinn Siglaugsson warns of some of the tricks the censors will play to try to discredit Malhotra and other dissenters from the orthodoxy. They will begin by “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,” he writes.
Other parts of this pattern include self-reference, strawman 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.
It’s time for Twitter to explain exactly why they have chosen to censor serious public-health specialists. Its likely new owner, Elon Musk, can’t get to their corporate offices fast enough to begin reforms.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário