Discover more from The Pulse
Three Popular Claims About COVID That Turned Out To Be False
Legacy media and governments have amassed a tremendous amount of power over our thoughts, feelings and emotions. When it comes to our perception about major global events, whether it be climate change, COVID-19, 9/11, or what's happening in Ukraine, it's often beamed into our consciousness as an unquestionable truth.
We've put our consciousness in the hands of powerful people who have labelled opposing views and evidence, no matter how strong, as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories."
"Fact-checking" organizations have also been birthed. And despite being called out and exposed by the likes of the British Medical Journal, and many others, they are still censoring information that opposes the "official" position of government, big corporations, pharmaceutical companies and federal health regulatory agencies - regardless of what the truth actually is.
After being proven wrong time and time again, they continue to muzzle scientists and promote irresponsible and incorrect conclusions about many things related to COVID-19.
Claim: Natural COVID -19 immunity does not provide strong protection against COVID-19, especially compared to the vaccines.
One common theme throughout the pandemic was the idea that natural immunity is not strong in preventing transmission or reducing severe disease. This idea was beamed out by mainstream media and government health officials consistently.
For example, in August 2021 the US Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said despite the fact that people can gain some protection after contracting Covid-19, it’s “not nearly as strong” as the vaccine.
Scientists and other experts in their fields who shared evidence regarding the strength of natural immunity were quickly 'fact checked,' censored, and in our case here at The Pulse, demonetized.
Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins provided one of many examples when it comes to censorship of science around this fact. This was from February 2022.
What does the science say?
Well, there are a number of examples of natural immunity providing strong protection from reinfection, death and hospitalization from COVID-19. Even early on in the pandemic more than 130 compelling studies emerged.
Fast forward to today, the study Dr. Makary referenced found evidence of strong and robust natural immunity from COVID-19 in unvaccinated healthy US adults up to 20 months after confirmed infection.
It will be interesting to see studies examining natural immunity years down the road to see if it lasts beyond this point. Some speculate it could last a lifetime, like we've seen with other coronaviruses.
Another paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine had similar results. According to their research, the effectiveness of a prior COVID infection in preventing reinfection is, for Alpha: 90.2% Beta: 85.7% Delta: 92.0% Omicron: 56.0%.
"Natural infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2) elicits strong protection against reinfection with the B.1.1.7 (alpha), 1,2 B.1.351 (beta(,1 and B.1.617.2 (delta) 3 variants."
I emailed one of the authors, Dr. Laith Jamal Abu Raddad with a question regarding the duration of the immunity. He responded,
Thank you for your interest in our study. We have been following people for >18 months, and so far natural immunity remains strong with little waning, apart from the drop in protection against Omicron. Our studies continue for us to see how long this will last. My guess natural immunity protection will wane against infection over-time, but slowly over few years. However, natural immunity against severe COVID-19 will last substantially longer, perhaps even for a lifetime (as we see for other common cold coronaviruses.)"
It's a shame that a proper discussion regarding natural immunity has not been had simply because it threatened various corporate and political agendas, not to mention 'health policy' like vaccine mandates, mask mandates and lockdowns.
Perhaps this, now unavoidable science, is why YouTube has quietly updated some of its COVID misinformation policies about these very facts. They have removed items relating to social distancing, masks and vaccines.
You can find more studies and examples regarding natural immunity here, we've covered it in depth over the past two and a half years.
Claim #2: COVID-19 Vaccines are safe and effective. The benefits outweigh the risks in all age ranges.
Even today, if one questions the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, they are subjected to extreme censorship, ridicule and 'fact checking.' This is despite the fact that there has been concerning data that's emerged regarding vaccine safety and efficacy.
When it comes to efficacy, throughout the pandemic some of the most highly vaccinated regions on the planet were experiencing the highest outbreaks. There were multiple examples. Yet suggesting COVID vaccines weren't very successful in reducing transmission was not allowed.
Today we know for a fact, just like we did during the initial rollout of these shots, that they are not very effective at reducing the transmission of COVID-19. This is because immunity conferred by the vaccines wanes quite fast, which is why we will probably see the constant push for one or two booster shots a year - an idea many are suggesting is unsustainable and potentially harmful.
Despite the facts listed above, media and government health agencies created a crisis that stigmatized the unvaccinated, often referring to the pandemic as a "pandemic of the unvaccinated." Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, even went as far as referring to unvaccinated Canadians as "racist" and "misogynistic" extremists.
“Public and political discourse quickly normalized stigma against people who remain unvaccinated, often woven into the tone and framing of media articles; for example, a popular news outlet compiled a list of “notable anti-vaxxers who have died from COVID-19” (Savulescu and Giubilini, 2021). Political leaders have singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for: the continuation of the pandemic; stress on hospital capacity; the emergence of new variants; driving transmission to vaccinated individuals; and the necessity of ongoing lockdowns, masks, school closures and other restrictive measures.
Political rhetoric has descended into moralizing, scapegoating, blaming and condescending language using pejorative terms and actively promoting stigma and discrimination as tools to increase vaccination.”
As far as vaccine safety concerns go, anybody who has questioned COVID-19 vaccine safety, regardless of background, has been ridiculed and censored as well.
One of the latest examples of a poor safety profile for COVID vaccines comes from Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal, Robert M. Kaplan from the Clinical Excellence Research Center, School of Medicine at Stanford University and colleagues.
They found the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events. The study was limited to analyzing trial data the companies submitted to the FDA and did not evaluate the vaccines’ overall harm-benefit.
However, the authors followed up in The BMJ with a public call for the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna to release the original COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data for independent analysis.
"What they found is shocking. In the trial itself it appeared that one was more likely to suffer a serious adverse event from the vaccine, so disability, life changing event, hospitalization, then they were to be hospitalized for COVID and that was during the more lethal strain."
With data like this, one has to look at the risk/benefit of COVID infection across different age groups to determine if the vaccine itself could cause similar or more risk than COVID. A one size fits all 'vaccinate everyone' policy is what most people have been contending. Not everyone is exposed to the same level of risk, and asking them to assume risks from an intervention they don't need is an ethical question ignored by government policy.
There have also been concerning injuries reported during trials. Maddie De Garay is one example. She was severely injured during her participation in Pfizer's clinical trials for 12-15 year olds. You can read more about her story here. Again, should children be given a medical treatment for an illness that poses them almost no risk?
One of the biggest concerns is the lack of transparency and poor data collection on the part of many governments. This means that those using public data to draw conclusions may be misled. Data that paints a more accurate picture is often not being considered.
For example, researchers in Israel found that many serious side effects from COVID-19 vaccines were in fact long-term, including ones not listed by Pfizer, and established a causal relationship with the vaccine. Yet, instead of publishing the findings to the public, the Ministry of Health withheld the findings for nearly two months. When it finally released in an official document, it misrepresented and manipulated the findings, minimized the extent of reports, and stated that no new adverse events (“signals”) were found. It further stated that the events that were detected were not caused by the vaccine, even though the researchers themselves said the exact opposite.
"In fact, since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, many Israeli experts have expressed serious concerns regarding the ability of the IMOH to monitor the safety of the vaccine and provide reliable data to the world. Nevertheless, the IMOH told the Israeli public, the FDA, and the entire world that they have a surveillance system, and that they are closely monitoring the data."
There are multiple examples of this type of fraud from around the world. But many researchers are simply not acknowledging or factoring in this manipulation into their calculations.
Epidemiologist Tracy Beth Høeg, M.D., Ph.D and researcher Marty Makary, M.D., M.P.H. have published a paper that includes anonymous testimonies from CDC officials about the lack of science taking place at the CDC when it comes to COVID-19. Many scientists are frustrated and embarrassed by the lack of science to support recommendations being made by the CDC.
Approximately 50 percent of vaccine injuries reported to VAERS in the last 30 years are all from COVID vaccines. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence of people sharing what they perceive to be their COVID vaccine induced injuries has exploded on social media. There are multiple examples, Jab Injuries Australia is one of them, Jab Injuries Canada is another.
Although there are criticisms of VAERS, researchers who have not even used VAERS have found concerning numbers from other surveillance systems, like the Brighton Collaboration, for example.
Furthermore, we must look at the double standards. The CDC used VAERS to determine the rate of myocarditis and acknowledged the cases reported. Yet the CDC refuses to use VAERS to acknowledge or investigate reported vaccine deaths. Why?
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency group has revealed that Pfizer was aware of 1,223 possible vaccine related deaths and more than 40,000 serious adverse reactions within the first 90 days of their COVID vaccine rollout.
Three pathologists have published a piece in the journal, Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine regarding their examination of autopsies conducted of two teenage boys who died days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine and concluded the vaccine was responsible.
Below are a few examples of reports submitted to VAERS in context with the autopsy examination analyzed in this article, mentioned above.
A recent death involved a 12-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1784945) who died from a respiratory tract hemorrhage 22 days after receiving her first Pfizer product dose. Another recent death is the case of a 16-year-old girl (VAERS I.D. 1694568) who died of pulmonary embolism 9 days after a Pfizer product dose (whether it was the first or second is unknown).
Yet another recent death was that of a 15-year-old boy who died six days after receiving his first dose of Pfizer product. The VAERS report (I.D. 1764974) states that the previously healthy teen ‘was in his usual state of good health. Five days after the vaccine, he complained of shoulder pain. He was playing with 2 friends at a community pond, swinging from a rope swing, flipping in the air, and landing in the water feet first. He surfaced, laughed, told his friends “Wow, that hurt!”, then swam towards the shore, underwater as was his usual routine. The friends became worried when he did not reemerge.
His body was retrieved by local authorities more than an hour later.’ The autopsy revealed ‘small foci of myocardial inflammation’, an adverse effect of these COVID products commonly found among children and youth, particularly young men.
Again, what all of this points to is the question of whether vaccines we don't know a whole lot about should be given to EVERYONE. For people who assume almost no risk from COVID-19, should they be given this medical treatment?
There is also concerning science that's been published regarding the distribution of vaccine contents, and whether or not they could be reverse transcribed into human DNA. These can all lead to concerns in the long term that will probably not be monitored.
In the video below, Pediatric Neurologist at Alberta Children's Hospital & assistant professor at the University of Calgary gives a great summary of the data he's come across which conflicts with what we've been told about vaccine safety and efficacy when it comes to COVID-19 transmission, hospitalization and deaths.
Another great video here providing a balanced discussion regarding potential vaccine benefits and failures we've seen throughout the pandemic. The COVID vaccine conversation is an important one, but rife with hyperbole. On one hand, it appears regulators and pharma companies are claiming their product is safe and effective, while companies mandate the jab on millions.
Claim #3: COVID-19 is deadly, so much so that we need to take aggressive health measures to lockdown and force everybody to get vaccinated.
You were definitely not allowed to question the severity of COVID-19. Any data or evidence suggesting COVID-19 is not as dangerous as big media and big health were making it out to be was censored. This doesn't mean stages of COVID were not more severe than others, but that one was not allowed to question whether the measures taken actually caused more harm than COVID itself. A proper contextual discussion within the mainstream was not had, at all.
If we start with children without any underlying health issues, they have a near one hundred percent survival rate from COVID-19. Yet the effects of COVID-19 mandates, like lockdowns and mask wearing for example, were detrimental to children and not considered in policy creation.
Health policy in the west was not the same as in some places in Europe. Many countries, like Sweden for example, don't recommend vaccines for children, more on that in a bit. Denmark has halted their vaccine program for people under the age of 50 due to the fact that, according to them, "people aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19." This decision has come now that we are in the midst of the less lethal strain, and the fact that many have gained immunity through natural infection.
At the height of the pandemic, if infected with COVID-19, children ages 0-9 had on average a chance of 0.1% or 1/1000 of being hospitalized and, for ages 11-19 a 0.2% or 1/500 chance of being admitted to the hospital (Herrera-Esposito, 2021). This was based on seroprevalence data from eight locations around the world: England; France; Ireland; Netherlands; Spain; Atlanta, USA; New York, USA; Geneva, Switzerland. The infection fatality rate for 0–9-year-olds is estimated to be less than 1 in 200,000 (less than 5 in 1 million) and 1 in 55,000 for 10–19 year-olds.
The risks of COVID-19 weren't enough compared to the risks of vaccine injury, as outlined above, for many parents, regardless how 'rare' one may perceive vaccine injuries to be. Meanwhile, multiple countries like Sweden and Norway for example, had to halt the rollout for children due to concerns over a myocarditis risk that was greater from the vaccine compared to a COVID infection.
When it comes to adults, although COVID is more of a risk, we have to put that risk in context with other viruses. Imagine if, for example, we tested every single person who entered into the hospital for a flu virus, and included that as a cause of death on every single death in the hospital, regardless if the cause of death was a car accident, heart attack, or something else. Those numbers would likely be shockingly high.
Concerns about the COVID death count emerged in early to mid 2020. This was primarily due to the fact that multiple health authorities admitted that a COVID death includes those who died with a positive test, regardless of whether the cause of death was something completely unrelated. There are a number of examples showing that we've been bombarded with a misleading COVID death count for years.
Infection fatality rates, even for adults, are still very high. And these numbers do not include the number of deaths that have been falsely labelled as COVID deaths. Given the fact that mass testing occurred, which is something that's never occurred before, the probability for a very significant over-count, in my opinion, is a no brainer.
This issue has been brought up as far back as 2007 when journalist Gina Kolata published an article in the New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
When put into context with other viruses, diseases and causes of death, COVID seems to be just as dangerous as various other 'emergencies' we've already been facing for years, in my opinion.
This doesn't mean COVID-19 is not dangerous, it simply means that throughout the pandemic, there was no context from health officials. False and misleading models were beamed out within the mainstream, and a death count ticker seemed to be on every single news station, every single day. One must factor in the massive psychological warfare operation that was deployed during COVID, rather than a balanced contextual conversation. We were fed a lot of propaganda that placed many people in an unnecessary state of fear.
We were never given a true representation regarding the severity of this virus, as the severity of the virus was heavily linked with political and other elitist agendas.
Final Thoughts. The Bigger Picture.
One of the biggest issues we face today as a people is simply being divided, unable to talk to each other. People become consumed in anger at those who opposed what they believed to be true and necessary. This anger in itself makes it impossible for us to ever come together to find a way forward.
It's still happening today.
It doesn't help when our sources of information, like government and legacy media, is ripe with ridicule and deception. Those who are subjected to this programming simply repeat what they see and hear, and take on that energy that is beamed out and embody it.
This type of aggressiveness is something we see within all of our systems, systems that actually incentivize bad behaviour. To me, it's quite clear that we cannot continue to go through modern day politics as a means for change. Yet we constantly participate and vote, while we continue to face and even add to more of our problems every single year. Big politics, despite people seeing it as a means for change, has become a cesspool of corruption. Agencies like the CDC and FDA that are charged with protecting the people are doing the exact opposite.
Even those within these systems are speaking out.
Can these agencies truly be transformed, or do we need to figure something else out? Government has and continues to lose the trust of the people, so much so that it seems nearly impossible to ever get back.
These days, establishing the facts of the matter may not be as easy as we presume. Conspiracy theorists claim to have proof just like the debunkers do. How do we know that the proof offered on either side is valid? Who has the time to apply the scientific method? It certainly seems safer to go with the conventional narrative because surely there are more rational minds in a larger group. Though it seems a reasonable approach, it may be in fact where we misstep. By deferring to others, we assume the majority will arrive at the truth eventually. The problem is that those in the majority who are trained to examine evidence objectively often must take a potentially career-ending risk to even investigate an alternative explanation. Why would an organization be willing to invest the resources to redirect their scientific staff to chase down and evaluate evidence that will likely endanger their reputation with the public without any upside? Thus, conventional narratives survive for another day, or in the case of an Earth-centered universe, for a couple of thousand years.