Fact Checking Covid

 Personally I can't imagine relying on a fact checking website for reliable information on Covid. I don't have much faith in online fact checkers in the first place although I'm sure a lot of people trust them. To me, online fact checks read like one-sided political debates - in other words like propaganda. One side is right or true while the other side is wrong or false.

Yet here I am reading an article on factcheck dot org about how narrow and wrong the argument is against Covid vaccines and spike proteins.

The article:

COVID-19 Vaccine-Generated Spike Protein is Safe, Contrary to Viral Claims

The article starts off with this sentence: "All of the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved in the United States are designed to instruct human cells to make harmless spike proteins — mimicking a viral protein that’s used by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to enter cells." Key word here is "harmless" so you know exactly where any bias by the author might reside.

The article seems to imply that the entire argument against the spike proteins in the vaccines originated from a radio interview in Canada of one Bryam Bridle, a viral immunologist. Apparently no other potential resources against these spike proteins exist otherwise wouldn't they be mentioned in this article?

I don't know what to think. I seem to detect some weaknesses in the arguments this article presents but maybe it's just me, my overactive imagination or something. For instance, there's this quote:

“The spike protein encoded by the mRNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech) and the J&J vaccine instruct the cells in our arm (where the injection is given) to produce spike protein that is tethered to the surface of the cell. It is not secreted and thus does not float through the body,”

Contrast that with this paragraph comparing vaccine spike proteins with actual Covid spike proteins which I guess supports the thesis that proves the vaccines' safety:

But, he said, there is “one key difference,” in that the spikes encoded by the vaccines “contain 2 amino acid changes that help stabilize the spike in its initial conformation and help prevent the spike from undergoing a conformational change that is required to facilitate membrane fusion.”

So the spike proteins produced by the vaccine right off the bat tether to the cells in tissue where they are injected but contain two amino acid changes that prevent membrane fusion. I guess that must mean that the Covid virus spike proteins help the virus fuse with host cells whereas the vaccine spike proteins just tether to the cells and don't cause the fusion of any deadly viruses (that presumably aren't in the vaccine in the first place) with the cell walls. Now in my mind reading this the assumption supporting this article's thesis is that it's the virus itself that causes harm, not the harmless tethering spike proteins. They just tether. They just attach themselves to cell walls near the injection site as some sort of "spike" and don't bother anything. They don't get into the blood and tether themselves to cells anywhere else in the body and apparently they don't bother anything other than the immune system which identifies them as the enemy for some reason even though they are just harmless little spikes and then... what? What does the immune system do to these cells that apparently now have the ability to grow these harmless little tethering spikes? I don't know, kill the cells maybe? I mean, isn't the whole point of the vaccination to train the immune system to identify these and similar spike proteins and kill the cells they are either tethered or fused to? Eat them up. Munch munch, gone!?

Right. Whatever. It's harmless, right? The thesis here is that it's harmless.

Go figure.

Then there's this thing with the recurring term "no evidence". One would assume that any responsible researcher would first look for evidence before declaring there is none. I guess that was old-school science. Now it seems more like hey nobody has thought it necessary to waste time searching for evidence to prove the counter-thesis so therefore there is no evidence of the counter-thesis itself. That rings of politics, doesn't it? Searching the paper I find eight instances of this "no evidence" claim. You want proof?

Again from the article, quoting:

According to the CDC’s website there is limited data available on the safety and the effects of vaccination in lactating people or breastfed babies because the clinical trials didn’t include people who were breastfeeding. However, it says, based on available data “COVID-19 vaccines are thought not to be a risk.”

Maybe that's all the proof you need that government mandated drugs are safe and effective. Good luck with that!

Then there's this one quoted from the article:

“I am quite confident that the spike protein is not a toxin,” she told FactCheck.org in an email. “Furthermore if vaccine induced spike were pathogenic wouldn’t we see a lot of illness following vaccination?” 

OK so how exactly would we see this? I mean, what, would the person who walked into the Covid vaccine clinic exhibit it right then and there? Some do of course, but wouldn't some of them maybe perhaps wait a few days before they had symptoms? OK so suppose they did delay before their heart attack or rash or whatever else appeared? How would researchers know it happened? How would they "see" illness? Would the suffering people just phone in to report it or something?

Well it just so happens they might just do that and who would they call to report it?

Who ya gonna call?

Well hey, why not give this a try, VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System run by the CDC. Once again Fact Check dot org has this one covered too! 

Viral Posts Misuse VAERS Data to Make False Claims About COVID-19 Vaccines

From their reporting we have this quote:

So when VAERS says it has received 2,509 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine as of March 29, that does not mean that those deaths were caused by the vaccine.

In fact, after reviewing medical records, autopsies and death certificates for all of those cases, physicians from both the CDC and the FDA determined that there was “no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths.”

No evidence! Imagine that! The vaccines haven't led to a single death reported to this CDC monitoring tool. Imagine that? Nobody can prove anything!

Now vaguely somewhere in the back of my head I remember reading within the past month or two that there have been in excess of 45,000 deaths, recent Covid vaccine related deaths at least in the minds of the survivors or maybe their healthcare representatives, reported on this VAERS tool and over 600,000 other suspected complications, but you know how it is, there's no way to prove a connection so there's "no evidence". Why that would be a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy to make that kind of connection! And we can't have something like that holding weight in science, can we?

You know, in my mind this kind of reporting and this kind of commentary on research is like pseudoscience or something. If I were a professor I would award an F to reports like these. But that is an old-fashioned way of looking at this. In the modern world there is another term used to refer to this kind of thing. That word is "Science" capitalized like the word "God".

*****

OK now that you have exposed yourself to this factcheck horse manure, watch this:

Watch Multiple Doctors Warn Against the Deadly Experimental COVID Injection