Lying pharma gonna lie like pharma.
Fuck those guys.
Fuck those guys.
Maximum Carnage Week Game Thread
- Thread starter Swaye
- Start date
Still wondering if it caused mine
Pure blood siblings superiority guy heard from.
= $75k
check out this cunt!
Like asthma, exposure of antigens to young children can build a lifetime immunity. Once again the US medical bureaucracy decided that exposing young children to peanuts should stop. Result has been an explosion of peanut allergies. The so called American Academy of Pediatrics has covered itself with shame once again. They are still silent as to the CDC recommendation of clot shots for 6 month old babies. Geezus.https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/us-peanut-allergy-epidemic-sprang-experts-exactly-wrong-guidance
US Peanut Allergy Epidemic Sprang From Experts' Exactly-Wrong Guidance
by Tyler Durden Saturday, Apr 05, 2025 - 04:50 PM
Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities
In the 1980s, peanut allergies were almost entirely unheard-of. Today, the United States has one of the highest peanut-allergy rates in the world. Disturbingly, this epidemic was precipitated by institutions that exist to promote public health. The story of their malpractice illuminates the fallibility of respected institutions, and confirms that public health’s catastrophically incorrect guidance during the Covid-19 pandemic wasn’t an isolated anomaly.
The roots of this particular example of expert-inflicted mass suffering can be found in the early 1990s, when the existence of peanut allergies — still a very rare and mostly low-risk phenomenon at the time — first came to public notice. Their entry into public consciousness began with studies published by medical researchers. By the mid-1990s, however, major media outlets were running attention-grabbing stories of hospitalized children and terrified parents. The Great Parental Peanut Panic was on.
As fear and dread mounted, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a professional association of tens of thousands of US pediatricians, felt compelled to tell parents how to prevent their children from becoming the latest victims. “There was just one problem: They didn’t know what precautions, if any, parents should take,” wrote then-Johns Hopkins surgeon and now-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary in his 2024 book, Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.
Ignorance proved no obstacle. Lacking humility and seeking to bolster its reputation as an authoritative organization, the AAP in 2000 handed down definitive instructions: Parents should avoid feeding any peanut product to children under 3 years old who were believed to have a high risk of developing a peanut allergy; pregnant and lactating mothers were likewise cautioned against consuming peanuts.
The AAP noted that “the ability to determine which infants are at high risk is imperfect.” Indeed, simply having a relative with any kind of allergy could land a child or mother in the “high risk” category. Believing they were erring on the side of caution, pediatricians across the country started giving blanket instructions that children shouldn’t be fed any peanut food until age 3; pregnant and breastfeeding mothers were told to steer clear too.
What was the basis of the AAP’s pronouncement? The organization was simply parroting guidance that the UK Department of Health had put forth in 1998. Makary scoured that guidance for a scientific rationale, and found a declaration that mothers who eat peanuts were more likely to have children with allergies, with the claim attributed to a 1996 study. When he checked the study, however, he was shocked to find the data demonstrated no such correlation. The study’s author, Irish pediatric professor Jonathan Hourihane, was himself shocked to see his study used to justify the policy. “It’s ridiculous,” he told Makary. “It’s not what I wanted people to believe.”
Despite the policy’s lack of scientific foundation, the US government’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) fully endorsed the AAP guidance. In time, it would be all too apparent that — as with public health’s later response to Covid-19 — the experts weren’t erring on the side of caution, they were .
It didn’t take long. By 2003, a study found that the rate of peanut allergies being self-reported by US children and their parents had doubled from 1998 levels. Critically, it wasn’t only the frequency that was soaring, but also the severity. “We saw a new type of allergy, which is the severe anaphylactic reaction, the ultra-allergy where, if someone used the same ice cream scooper…even though they rinsed it, that kid could end up in the emergency room,” Makary explained in a September podcast appearance.
All along, the right thing to do was the opposite of what the AAP and NIAID had instructed: The best means of avoiding peanut allergies wasn’t to shield young children from peanuts, but rather to intentionally feed them peanuts. That was consistent with established principles of immunological tolerance — specifically, the knowledge that early-life contact with various substances can promote tolerance of would-be allergens.
Rather than decreasing peanut allergies, AAP and NIAID created an all-out epidemic, and then prolonged it by fiercely resisting the stark reality of what they’d done. Instead of re-examining the rationale for the peanut-avoidance instruction, the public health establishment only became more emphatic in pushing its bad medicine, assuming noncompliant parents must be to blame. In reality, as the allergy rate soared, parents were growing even more dedicated to keeping children away from peanuts. The vicious circle of the growing epidemic prompting even more peanut avoidance brought disaster, with ER trips for peanut allergy attacks tripling from 2005 to 2014.
There were dissident voices in medicine from the very start of the UK-led madness. One of them, London pediatric allergist and immunologist Gideon Lack, set out to prove the guidance was wrong. His initial, 2008 study showing that genetically similar populations with vastly different exposures to peanuts in infancy had correspondingly divergent peanut allergy rates wasn’t enough to overcome the entrenched dogma.
It was only after he created a randomized controlled trial — comparing the effects of peanut exposure on children between 4 and 11 months old — that he proved that, as is the case with so many other allergies, peanut exposure is preventative, not causative. Specifically, he observed that the group of children who were exposed to peanuts in their infancy had 86% fewer peanut allergies than children who’d been shielded from peanuts.
US Peanut Allergy Epidemic Sprang From Experts' Exactly-Wrong Guidance
by Tyler Durden Saturday, Apr 05, 2025 - 04:50 PM
Via Brian McGlinchey at Stark Realities
In the 1980s, peanut allergies were almost entirely unheard-of. Today, the United States has one of the highest peanut-allergy rates in the world. Disturbingly, this epidemic was precipitated by institutions that exist to promote public health. The story of their malpractice illuminates the fallibility of respected institutions, and confirms that public health’s catastrophically incorrect guidance during the Covid-19 pandemic wasn’t an isolated anomaly.
The roots of this particular example of expert-inflicted mass suffering can be found in the early 1990s, when the existence of peanut allergies — still a very rare and mostly low-risk phenomenon at the time — first came to public notice. Their entry into public consciousness began with studies published by medical researchers. By the mid-1990s, however, major media outlets were running attention-grabbing stories of hospitalized children and terrified parents. The Great Parental Peanut Panic was on.
As fear and dread mounted, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a professional association of tens of thousands of US pediatricians, felt compelled to tell parents how to prevent their children from becoming the latest victims. “There was just one problem: They didn’t know what precautions, if any, parents should take,” wrote then-Johns Hopkins surgeon and now-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary in his 2024 book, Blind Spots: When Medicine Gets It Wrong, and What It Means for Our Health.
Ignorance proved no obstacle. Lacking humility and seeking to bolster its reputation as an authoritative organization, the AAP in 2000 handed down definitive instructions: Parents should avoid feeding any peanut product to children under 3 years old who were believed to have a high risk of developing a peanut allergy; pregnant and lactating mothers were likewise cautioned against consuming peanuts.
The AAP noted that “the ability to determine which infants are at high risk is imperfect.” Indeed, simply having a relative with any kind of allergy could land a child or mother in the “high risk” category. Believing they were erring on the side of caution, pediatricians across the country started giving blanket instructions that children shouldn’t be fed any peanut food until age 3; pregnant and breastfeeding mothers were told to steer clear too.
What was the basis of the AAP’s pronouncement? The organization was simply parroting guidance that the UK Department of Health had put forth in 1998. Makary scoured that guidance for a scientific rationale, and found a declaration that mothers who eat peanuts were more likely to have children with allergies, with the claim attributed to a 1996 study. When he checked the study, however, he was shocked to find the data demonstrated no such correlation. The study’s author, Irish pediatric professor Jonathan Hourihane, was himself shocked to see his study used to justify the policy. “It’s ridiculous,” he told Makary. “It’s not what I wanted people to believe.”
Despite the policy’s lack of scientific foundation, the US government’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) fully endorsed the AAP guidance. In time, it would be all too apparent that — as with public health’s later response to Covid-19 — the experts weren’t erring on the side of caution, they were .
It didn’t take long. By 2003, a study found that the rate of peanut allergies being self-reported by US children and their parents had doubled from 1998 levels. Critically, it wasn’t only the frequency that was soaring, but also the severity. “We saw a new type of allergy, which is the severe anaphylactic reaction, the ultra-allergy where, if someone used the same ice cream scooper…even though they rinsed it, that kid could end up in the emergency room,” Makary explained in a September podcast appearance.
All along, the right thing to do was the opposite of what the AAP and NIAID had instructed: The best means of avoiding peanut allergies wasn’t to shield young children from peanuts, but rather to intentionally feed them peanuts. That was consistent with established principles of immunological tolerance — specifically, the knowledge that early-life contact with various substances can promote tolerance of would-be allergens.
Rather than decreasing peanut allergies, AAP and NIAID created an all-out epidemic, and then prolonged it by fiercely resisting the stark reality of what they’d done. Instead of re-examining the rationale for the peanut-avoidance instruction, the public health establishment only became more emphatic in pushing its bad medicine, assuming noncompliant parents must be to blame. In reality, as the allergy rate soared, parents were growing even more dedicated to keeping children away from peanuts. The vicious circle of the growing epidemic prompting even more peanut avoidance brought disaster, with ER trips for peanut allergy attacks tripling from 2005 to 2014.
There were dissident voices in medicine from the very start of the UK-led madness. One of them, London pediatric allergist and immunologist Gideon Lack, set out to prove the guidance was wrong. His initial, 2008 study showing that genetically similar populations with vastly different exposures to peanuts in infancy had correspondingly divergent peanut allergy rates wasn’t enough to overcome the entrenched dogma.
It was only after he created a randomized controlled trial — comparing the effects of peanut exposure on children between 4 and 11 months old — that he proved that, as is the case with so many other allergies, peanut exposure is preventative, not causative. Specifically, he observed that the group of children who were exposed to peanuts in their infancy had 86% fewer peanut allergies than children who’d been shielded from peanuts.
Apparently transparency doesn't mean that your boss has access to your database. CDC still recommending clot shots for infants. SCIENCE indeed.https://ace.mu.nu/
"Top" "Vaccine" "Expert" and Public "Servant" Fired After Blocking the Secretary of Health From Accessing the VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reaction Database
—Ace
Vaccine Fascism is Best Fascism.
What this neurotic delusional paranoid really means, but is still sane enough to know it sounds crazy, is that he fears that Kennedy will start making up adverse vaccine reactions and adding them to the database like a Democrat defacing the Wikipedia pages of conservatives.
Because we all know that "experts" are always right and only act in the public interest.
If this piece sounds a little fawning, that's because it's an AP propaganda piece.
David Strom notes that the whole left is treating him as another Saint Anthony Fauci of the Blessed Furin Cleavage Site.
"Top" "Vaccine" "Expert" and Public "Servant" Fired After Blocking the Secretary of Health From Accessing the VAERS Vaccine Adverse Reaction Database
—Ace
Vaccine Fascism is Best Fascism.
So he's another self-righteous, toxic leftwing paranoid.
Why would a vaccine skeptic like RFKJr. delete a database of bad reactions to vaccines? The database is evidence to a vaccine skeptic.
What this neurotic delusional paranoid really means, but is still sane enough to know it sounds crazy, is that he fears that Kennedy will start making up adverse vaccine reactions and adding them to the database like a Democrat defacing the Wikipedia pages of conservatives.
Did "experts" debunk it?
Because we all know that "experts" are always right and only act in the public interest.
Except, of course, actually obeying the orders of his boss. But apart from that -- he did everything.
If this piece sounds a little fawning, that's because it's an AP propaganda piece.
David Strom notes that the whole left is treating him as another Saint Anthony Fauci of the Blessed Furin Cleavage Site.
Between their already existing lefty lunacy and the jab it makes them super loons!
Good times. Leftards fondly remember when Cuomo was there with St. Fow Chee on the Mt. Rushmore of chicom crud heroes. Stuffing nursing homes full of sick younger covid patients while ignoring the hospital ship that Trump sent to NYC. Locking down the population, closing schools and lying about masking. Swell guy.https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/...47343-medical-devices-covid-state-used-only-3
Audit: Cuomo Spent $453M On 247,343 Medical Devices For COVID... State Used Only 3
by Tyler Durden
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's handling of the Covid crisis wasn't just a health catastrophe, but a financial one too, according to a damning new audit report released Friday. The state government poured $453 million into building an enormous stockpile of medical equipment -- and only used 0.000012% of it.
According to state comptroller Tom DiNapoli, New York bought a staggering 247,343 medical devices, but only wound up using a laughable three pieces of equipment out of the vast horde. Worse, the waste was only compounded by the state's utter neglect of its fiduciary duties to taxpayers. Rather than finding buyers for the once-valuable assets, bureaucrats have been content to let the equipment age and decay in warehouses. As if the erosion of the stockpiles weren't bad enough, New York is also wasting money on storage costs.
“New York state bought hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of medical equipment at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, including ventilators and x-ray machines, that now sits unused in storage facilities across the state, missing recommended maintenance and costing taxpayers storage expenses,” said Napoli's office. Of the equipment that requires ongoing maintenance, auditors found that 90% of it is past due, with no process or contract in place to handle that need. Failure to keep up with maintenance risks voiding manufacturer warranties, and also rendering the equipment unusable in an emergency.
Audit: Cuomo Spent $453M On 247,343 Medical Devices For COVID... State Used Only 3
by Tyler Durden
Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's handling of the Covid crisis wasn't just a health catastrophe, but a financial one too, according to a damning new audit report released Friday. The state government poured $453 million into building an enormous stockpile of medical equipment -- and only used 0.000012% of it.
According to state comptroller Tom DiNapoli, New York bought a staggering 247,343 medical devices, but only wound up using a laughable three pieces of equipment out of the vast horde. Worse, the waste was only compounded by the state's utter neglect of its fiduciary duties to taxpayers. Rather than finding buyers for the once-valuable assets, bureaucrats have been content to let the equipment age and decay in warehouses. As if the erosion of the stockpiles weren't bad enough, New York is also wasting money on storage costs.
“New York state bought hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of medical equipment at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, including ventilators and x-ray machines, that now sits unused in storage facilities across the state, missing recommended maintenance and costing taxpayers storage expenses,” said Napoli's office. Of the equipment that requires ongoing maintenance, auditors found that 90% of it is past due, with no process or contract in place to handle that need. Failure to keep up with maintenance risks voiding manufacturer warranties, and also rendering the equipment unusable in an emergency.
Lab Leak: The True Origins of Covid-19
Nice upgrade to the site
Nice upgrade to the site