Florida Recommends Against Vaccination of 18-39 Year Old Males Due to 84% Increase in Cardiac Death Risk
How long until the Florida Surgeon General will be thrown off social media by the censors? Not long, I predict.
Yesterday, the Florida Health Department issued a 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% 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 severly 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 they did little if nothing to prevent infections.
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 in fact 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; and
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
An inability of doctors to understand and communicate health statistics.
The censors (who call themselves “fact-checkers”) were quick to try and take down Malhotra’s careful analysis of the situation, of course 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 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 organization opposing vaccination, and outlets such as The Epoch Times and Washington Times, labeled 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, 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.
Florida’s Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo is clearly concerned with the health of the 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.
Stop press: The day after I published this article, Twitter censored Ladapo’s tweet on the matter:
Late in the day I received the news the tweet was up again.
Thanks for reading From Symptoms to Causes! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Florida is lucky to have him
So is Ron de Santis
Think how differently everything would have been, even globally, had people like DeSantis & Ladapo been in charge. Hope springs eternal that they WILL be