Recently the CDC reported that there is "no link" between the mRNA vaccine and sudden cardiac death:
Scripps News Staff (2024, April 11). No link between sudden cardiac deaths and COVID vaccine, CDC says https://scrippsnews.com/stories/no-link-between-sudden-cardiac-deaths-and-covid-vaccine-cdc-says/
I have to wonder whether people actually believe the CDC messaging regarding the absence of risk.
Historically, US and other government agencies NEVER acknowledge risks that they have had a direct hand in producing.
We could review the historical record regarding the gaslighting of legitimate concerns regarding radiation risk to demonstrate this point.
The film “No Threshold for Fear” (see here ) aggressively propagated in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, demonstrates empirically how "radiophobia" was deployed to marginalize and deny oppositional discourses, both scientific and community-based. Radiophobia is a form of gaslighting designed to deny radiation harms by representing them as psychosomatic illness.
The discourse of radiophobia was disseminated historically in medical journals in the 1950s and by scientific authorities after Chernobyl and the Fukushima disasters, as illustrated by the internal contradictions in this “scientific” article appearing in Nature:
Decades after atmospheric testing and Chernobyl, research retroactively acknowledged radiation health hazards. For example:
Historically, US and other government agencies NEVER acknowledge risks that they have had a direct hand in producing.
We could review the historical record regarding the gaslighting of legitimate concerns regarding radiation risk to demonstrate this point.
The film “No Threshold for Fear” (see here ) aggressively propagated in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, demonstrates empirically how "radiophobia" was deployed to marginalize and deny oppositional discourses, both scientific and community-based. Radiophobia is a form of gaslighting designed to deny radiation harms by representing them as psychosomatic illness.
The discourse of radiophobia was disseminated historically in medical journals in the 1950s and by scientific authorities after Chernobyl and the Fukushima disasters, as illustrated by the internal contradictions in this “scientific” article appearing in Nature:
Brumfield, Geoff & Fuyuno (2012, March 7) Japan's nuclear crisis: Fukushima's legacy of fear. Nature, 483, 138-140, http://www.nature.com/news/japan-s-nuclear-crisis-fukushima-s-legacy-of-fear-1.10183
Decades after atmospheric testing and Chernobyl, research retroactively acknowledged radiation health hazards. For example:
Dubrova, Yuri E., Plumb, M., Gutierrez, B., Emma Boulton, E., & A. J. Jeffreys (2000, May 4). Genome Stability: Transgenerational mutation by radiation. Nature, 405, 37 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v405/n6782/abs/405037a0.html
Wertelecki, W. (2010). Malformations in a Chornobyl-impacted region. Pediatrics 125(4), e836-e843
In our contemporary era, some 12 years after Fukushima, we learn that young people's excess rates of cancer - particularly stomach cancer - are highly correlated with accelerated aging:
Hmmm. What causes accelerated aging? Ionizing radiation is a major force in accelerated aging:
Li Z, Zhang W, Duan Y, Niu Y, Chen Y, Liu X, Dong Z, Zheng Y, Chen X, Feng Z, Wang Y, Zhao D, Sun X, Cai G, Jiang H, Chen X. Progress in biological age research. Front Public Health. 2023 Apr 12;11:1074274. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1074274. PMID: 37124811; PMCID: PMC10130645.
Hmmm. What causes accelerated aging? Ionizing radiation is a major force in accelerated aging:
Jian Tong, Tom K. Hei, (2020). Aging and age-related health effects of ionizing radiation,
Radiation Medicine and Protection, 1(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmp.2020.01.005.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666555720300058)
Radiation Medicine and Protection, 1(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radmp.2020.01.005.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666555720300058)
Abstract: There is increasing evidence showing a close relationship between human radiation sensitivity and age-related health effects including cancer. Individuals exposed to ionizing radiation (IR) are the most radiosensitive at early ages, and decrease in radiation sensitivity until maturity, but increase again at older ages, as measured with incidence of carcinogenic events. This article reviews the historical and current status of aging and age-related health effects induced by IR, with results obtained from epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies over the last 20 years. Mechanistic studies underlying these radiation-induced effects are summarized in terms of DNA damage and genomic instability, telomere erosion, oxidative stress and inflammation, as well as radiation-associated cellular senescence and epigenetic alterations. Since individual radiosensitivity changes with age and the life expectancy of population rises steadily, there is a pressing need for a better understanding of the aging-radiation exposure association so as to improve radiation protection in clinical practice.
After the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the news media and governmental authorities repeatedly denied increased risk from radiation hazards globally, as discussed in this article by Gayle Greene:
Greene, G. (2011, January 6). Science with a Skew: The Nuclear Power Industry After Chernobyl and Fukushima Asia Pacific Journal. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Gayle-Greene/3672
...That mainstream media have been powerful advocates for nuclear power comes as no surprise. “The media are saturated with a skilled, intensive, and effective advocacy campaign by the nuclear industry, resulting in disinformation” and “wholly counterfactual accounts…widely believed by otherwise sensible people,” states the 2010-2011 World Nuclear Industry Status Report by Worldwatch Institute. What is less well understood is the nature of the “evidence” that gives the nuclear industry its mandate, Cold War science which, with its reassurances about low-dose radiation risk, is being used to quiet alarms about Fukushima and to stonewall new evidence that would call a halt to the industry.
...That mainstream media have been powerful advocates for nuclear power comes as no surprise. “The media are saturated with a skilled, intensive, and effective advocacy campaign by the nuclear industry, resulting in disinformation” and “wholly counterfactual accounts…widely believed by otherwise sensible people,” states the 2010-2011 World Nuclear Industry Status Report by Worldwatch Institute. What is less well understood is the nature of the “evidence” that gives the nuclear industry its mandate, Cold War science which, with its reassurances about low-dose radiation risk, is being used to quiet alarms about Fukushima and to stonewall new evidence that would call a halt to the industry.
Consider these damage control pieces from major media:
~~ The “miniscule quantities” of radiation in the radioactive plume spreading across the U.S. pose “no health hazard,” assures the Department of Energy (William Broad, “Radiation over U.S. is Harmless, Officials Say,” NYT, March 22, 2011).
~~ “The risk of cancer is quite low, lower than what the public might expect,” explains Evan Douple, head of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), which has studied the A-bomb survivors and found that “at very low doses, the risk was also very low” (Denise Grady, “Radiation is everywhere, but how to rate harm?” NYT, April 5, 2011).
~~ An NPR story a few days after the Daiichi reactors destabilized quotes this same Evan Douple saying that radiation levels around the plant “should be reassuring. At these levels so far I don’t think a study would be able to measure that there would be any health effects, even in the future.” (“Early radiation data from near plant ease health fears,” Richard Knox and Andrew Prince,” March 18, 2011) The NPR story, like Grady’s piece (above), stresses that the Radiation Effects Research Foundation has had six decades experience studying the health effects of radiation, so it ought to know.
~~ The “miniscule quantities” of radiation in the radioactive plume spreading across the U.S. pose “no health hazard,” assures the Department of Energy (William Broad, “Radiation over U.S. is Harmless, Officials Say,” NYT, March 22, 2011).
~~ “The risk of cancer is quite low, lower than what the public might expect,” explains Evan Douple, head of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), which has studied the A-bomb survivors and found that “at very low doses, the risk was also very low” (Denise Grady, “Radiation is everywhere, but how to rate harm?” NYT, April 5, 2011).
~~ An NPR story a few days after the Daiichi reactors destabilized quotes this same Evan Douple saying that radiation levels around the plant “should be reassuring. At these levels so far I don’t think a study would be able to measure that there would be any health effects, even in the future.” (“Early radiation data from near plant ease health fears,” Richard Knox and Andrew Prince,” March 18, 2011) The NPR story, like Grady’s piece (above), stresses that the Radiation Effects Research Foundation has had six decades experience studying the health effects of radiation, so it ought to know.
See also my published researcher here on the subject of "radiophobia" (also discussed on my blog here):
Nadesan, Majia. "4. Radiophobia and the Politics of Social Contagion". Transforming Contagion: Risky Contacts among Bodies, Disciplines, and Nations, edited by Breanne Fahs, Annika Mann, Eric Swank and Sarah Stage, Ithaca, NY: Rutgers University Press, 2018, pp. 71-84. https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813589626-005
Video interview on radiophobia here:
http://nuclearhotseat.com/2019/06/11/radiophobia-schmadiophobia-the-lie-at-the-heart-of-nuclear-ignorance-majia-nadesan-8th-anniversary-nh-416/
http://nuclearhotseat.com/2019/06/11/radiophobia-schmadiophobia-the-lie-at-the-heart-of-nuclear-ignorance-majia-nadesan-8th-anniversary-nh-416/
Given the historical record, it is very unlikely that our government agencies are going to admit that they have conducted a dangerous experiment on the global human population with the enforced mRNA vaccines, as discussed in this powerful warning by Prof Masayasu Inoue, Professor Emeritus of Osaka City University Medical School here: https://twitter.com/VigilantFox/status/1778258323558523184
It will likely be decades before the stigma and career repercussions lessen enough to enable adverse effects from genetic engineering experimentation upon the population to surface. See my partial summary here: https://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2023/09/hazards-of-mrna-vaccine-platform.html
In the meantime, as in the past, each individual is at the mercy of economic and political infrastructures that practice thanatopolitics.
Related Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.