{"id":9476,"date":"2024-05-16T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-05-16T11:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=9476"},"modified":"2024-05-14T09:45:15","modified_gmt":"2024-05-14T14:45:15","slug":"the-tide-turns-research-on-covid-vaccine-harms-once-a-taboo-subject-now-appearing-in-some-medical-journals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/?p=9476","title":{"rendered":"The Tide Turns: Research On COVID Vaccine Harms, Once A Taboo Subject, Now Appearing In Some Medical Journals"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

MAY 14, 2024 – Authored by Joe Wang via The Epoch Times\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When COVID-19 took the world by storm in early 2020, I mostly relied on reading Nature Medicine, The Lancet, and a few other medical journals to learn the latest on this new disease.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2020, I read an article published in Nature Medicine titled \u201cThe proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2<\/a>\u201d with great interest. Written by California-based Scripps Institute\u2019s Kristian Andersen and four other well-known professors, it said SARS-CoV-2 binds to human cells much better than any computer programs predicted, and concluded that \u201cSARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having been a scientist with the world\u2019s largest vaccine company for more than 10 years, I took issue with this claim.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a May 2022 commentary titled \u201cPandemic Lessons Learned<\/a>: Scientific Debate Silenced, With Deadly Consequences\u201d I wrote: \u201cIf SARS-CoV-2 infects people better than your computer predicts, then the only conclusion you can draw is that your computer sucks. How did these world-renowned scientists get the basic logic so wrong? And how did the prestigious publication Nature Medicine not catch that? Did anyone even read the paper before publishing it, not to mention peer review it?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Andersen article\u2019s conclusion, as it turned out, was a complete flip-flop on Andersen\u2019s Jan. 31, 2020, email to Dr. Anthony Fauci,<\/strong> then the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), in which he wrote that \u201csome of the features (potentially) look engineered,\u201d referring to the coronavirus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fauci emails were made public in June 2021<\/a> via Freedom of Information Act requests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless, the Nature Medicine paper became the authority on the origin of COVID. It essentially excluded the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Dr. Fauci from any responsibility for the emergence of the virus. Any attempts to investigate or explore other possibilities were labelled conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Andersen, and the article itself, were the subject of a U.S. Congressional Hearing<\/a> by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in June 2023. The debate on how COVID originated is still ongoing today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lancet and the Daszak Statement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Andersen and Nature Medicine weren\u2019t the only ones trying to please the CCP and Fauci.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Feb. 18, 2020, The Lancet, another top medical journal, published a political statement<\/a> with no science in it. It was organized by Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance, which was the middleman for channeling Fauci\u2019s National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, according to a U.S. Congress report<\/a> released on May 1 of this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Daszak et al. statement dismissed as a conspiracy theory any suggestion that COVID was not of natural origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin,\u201d they wrote. \u201cConspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardize our global collaboration in the fight against this virus.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Tune Is Set<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Daszak statement, along with the Andersen article, set the tune for the officially accepted narrative. The narrative then expanded from \u201ca natural origin of the virus\u201d to \u201ca COVID vaccine will flatten the curve and save the world.\u201d Scientists<\/a>, doctors<\/a>, and journal editors<\/a> who dared to challenge the narrative were cancelled and\/or labelled conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has been four years and six months since the world first encountered SARS-CoV-2. Despite the claims by famous scientists like Fauci and Andersen, and despite the countless efforts by top virologists and public health professionals, evidence that the virus originated naturally has not been found.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More and more people now believe that the virus was leaked or escaped from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which has been doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses, and published such research<\/a> in Nature Medicine in 2015, with NIH funding acknowledged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lab origin is no longer a conspiracy theory. The U.S. Energy Department<\/a> and the FBI<\/a> both now believe that the virus was more likely leaked from a lab than having developed naturally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Encouraging Developments<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Since the pandemic, The Epoch Times<\/a> and NTD<\/a> have been publishing documentary<\/a> films on COVID origin and vaccine injuries. The first such documentary, Joshua Philipp\u2019s \u201cTracking Down the Origin<\/a> of the Wuhan Coronavirus,\u201d was viewed over 100 million times on different platforms combined. However, such reports are rarely seen in other legacy media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It has also been a taboo subject for scientific research and publication, but that may be starting to change.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recently, I wrote a commentary about a new paper<\/a> by five Japanese scientists that was published on Cureus, a peer-reviewed medical journal owned by the Springer Nature Group, the same company that owns Nature and Nature Medicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scientists analyzed data collected from the entire 123 million Japanese population and concluded that the majority of the 115,799 excess deaths in 2022 was not due to COVID infection but rather vaccination, in particular the third COVID shot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I was pleasantly surprised that a once-taboo subject was now published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, especially a member journal of the Springer Nature Group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In another positive development, this month the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules (IJBM) published a paper titled \u201cReview: N1-methyl-pseudouridine: Friend or foe of cancer?\u201d linking<\/a> a key ingredient in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine with cancer development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IJBM is owned by the Dutch academic publishing company Elsevier, which also owns renowned publications like The Lancet, Cell, and ScienceDirect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

May the Force Be With the Editors-in-Chief<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the spring of 2022, when more scientists started to challenge the accepted narratives and seek the truth, I co-wrote the commentary<\/a> \u201cMay the Force Be With Them: Scientists Fight Back.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At that time, these brave scientists needed all the help they could get. For example, when a journal published a well-researched, well-written, and fact-based scientific paper<\/a> on the safety concerns of the mRNA vaccines, the editor-in-chief of that journal was ousted<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The journal was Food and Chemical Toxicology, another Elsevier publication, and the editor-in-chief was Dr. Jos\u00e9 Luis Domingo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two years later, I\u2019m optimistic that the IJBM editors-in-chief won\u2019t face the same treatment as Dr. Domingo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why? I believe the tide has turned.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A recent New York Times article on COVID<\/a> vaccine injuries is also an encouraging sign. It cites the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s former acting commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock as saying the injuries are \u201cserious\u201d and \u201clife-changing,\u201d and \u201cshould be taken seriously.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019m disappointed in myself,\u201d she added. \u201cI did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn\u2019t bring it home.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the reported injured is the editor-in-chief of the journal Vaccine, Dr. Gregory Poland. He has been suffering from tinnitus since his first shot. The Centers for Disease Control didn\u2019t take his report on his personal experience seriously. He told the NY Times that he did not \u201cget any sense of movement (from the CDC).\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIf they have done studies (on vaccine injury), those studies should be published,\u201d Dr. Poland added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The journal Vaccine is also an Elsevier publication, and as the editor-in-chief, Dr. Poland is well positioned to offer his encouragement on vaccine injury studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yes, I believe the tide has turned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, as of today, the Daszak statement is still on The Lancet website and the Andersen paper is still on Nature Medicine.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wonder when the Lancet and Nature Medicine will have the courage to retract them? And when will these two eminent journals start publishing research on COVID vaccine injuries?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MAY 14, 2024 – Authored by Joe Wang via The Epoch Times\u00a0 When COVID-19 took the world by storm in early 2020, I mostly relied on reading Nature Medicine, The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9478,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[972,973,974,607],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9476","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-vaccine-enhanced-disease","category-vaccine-failure","category-vaccine-long-term-safety","category-vaccine-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9476","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9476"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9476\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9477,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9476\/revisions\/9477"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9478"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9476"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9476"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cov19longhaulfoundation.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9476"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}