COVID misinformation is coming from the government
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
In June, an advisory committee to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention met to discuss, among other topics, vaccine-related cases of myocarditis, which have hospitalized hundreds of adolescents.
Evidence of a correlation between the condition, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and the vaccines had been mounting for months.
Numerous countries had altered or withheld recommendations for pediatric vaccination, with some citing an ambiguous risk-benefit.
One day after the committee meeting, however, CDC director Rochelle Walensky went on TV and calmly reassured viewers that there was nothing to worry about: Vaccinating kids age 12 and up, at the full dosage and same schedule as adults, should continue with alacrity.
Walensky cited a string of statistics that showed “the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any harm.” But epidemiologists, public health experts, pediatricians, cardiologists, and scientists dispute the CDC’s numbers, characterizations, and conclusion.
The agency, they variously contend, is both exaggerating the risks of Covid-19 to young people and underplaying the potential risks of the vaccine to them. Much data that would support the CDC’s declarations are either unknown, unrevealed, or far messier than the agency and its director portray.
The data that are known and clear have been projected through a specific lens with blunt certainty. The absolute risk of the vaccine still appears to be extremely small for young people but, on balance, when the data are seen through a different frame, the relative individual risk from vaccination, particularly for healthy young males, may be higher than it is to not be vaccinated.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-cdc-owes-parents-better-messaging-on-the-vaccine-for-kids/
Evidence of a correlation between the condition, an inflammation of the heart muscle, and the vaccines had been mounting for months.
Numerous countries had altered or withheld recommendations for pediatric vaccination, with some citing an ambiguous risk-benefit.
One day after the committee meeting, however, CDC director Rochelle Walensky went on TV and calmly reassured viewers that there was nothing to worry about: Vaccinating kids age 12 and up, at the full dosage and same schedule as adults, should continue with alacrity.
Walensky cited a string of statistics that showed “the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any harm.” But epidemiologists, public health experts, pediatricians, cardiologists, and scientists dispute the CDC’s numbers, characterizations, and conclusion.
The agency, they variously contend, is both exaggerating the risks of Covid-19 to young people and underplaying the potential risks of the vaccine to them. Much data that would support the CDC’s declarations are either unknown, unrevealed, or far messier than the agency and its director portray.
The data that are known and clear have been projected through a specific lens with blunt certainty. The absolute risk of the vaccine still appears to be extremely small for young people but, on balance, when the data are seen through a different frame, the relative individual risk from vaccination, particularly for healthy young males, may be higher than it is to not be vaccinated.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-cdc-owes-parents-better-messaging-on-the-vaccine-for-kids/
What are they hiding?
The FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
Transparency regarding this product means, if nothing else, sharing the data the FDA relied upon to license this vaccine.
The definition of “transparency” literally includes “accessibility of information.”
So, when the FDA denies a request to expedite release of this data from a group of highly credentialed scientists from major universities across the country, is that transparency?
If the FDA is committed to transparency, why must a federal lawsuit be filed to timely obtain this data?
Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?
Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.””
The FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine.
Transparency regarding this product means, if nothing else, sharing the data the FDA relied upon to license this vaccine.
The definition of “transparency” literally includes “accessibility of information.”
So, when the FDA denies a request to expedite release of this data from a group of highly credentialed scientists from major universities across the country, is that transparency?
If the FDA is committed to transparency, why must a federal lawsuit be filed to timely obtain this data?
Why has the FDA, weeks after the filing of a federal lawsuit, still not agreed to timely release this data?
Why does the FDA persist in delaying its release when even federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the biological product file [for the licensed vaccine] are immediately available for public disclosure.””
FAUCI SHOULD BE PROSECUTED, ALONG WITH ALL THE MURDEROUS CORON-A-CRAT GOVERNORS WHO BUTCHERED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF THE ELEDERLY IN NURSING HOMES.
It won't happen.
Even Cuomo was ousted by "me-too", and not because of his mismanagement.
https://www.newsweek.com/pfizer-merck-covid-pills-could-key-ending-pandemic-1646371
The whole vaccine narrative, already wobbly on efficacy, is going down in flames and it’s too big to hide.
Now Pfizer and Merck suddenly each have a vaccine "pill".
These pills supposedly do 3 things:
1. Generate a huge new revenue opportunity for Big Pharma
2. Mask the failing vaccines by distracting the public's attention from one emerging curve under a new one.
3. Here’s the fun part: they totally undermine the pretexts for vaccine mandates or covid vaccination at all.
If a pill supposedly drops risk of serious illness by 89% (remember we were told mRNA vaccines were 95% effective) then why take the risk of shooting up with endless injections (mRNA + regular boosters) that at best afford much less protection for only 6 moths at a time?
We now know that Pfizer fudged the mRNA trials and there's no reason to suppose these pills are all they're cracked up to be, either.
I smell a rat.
The left:
The whole vaccine narrative, already wobbly on efficacy, is going down in flames and it’s too big to hide.
Now Pfizer and Merck suddenly each have a vaccine "pill".
These pills supposedly do 3 things:
1. Generate a huge new revenue opportunity for Big Pharma
2. Mask the failing vaccines by distracting the public's attention from one emerging curve under a new one.
3. Here’s the fun part: they totally undermine the pretexts for vaccine mandates or covid vaccination at all.
If a pill supposedly drops risk of serious illness by 89% (remember we were told mRNA vaccines were 95% effective) then why take the risk of shooting up with endless injections (mRNA + regular boosters) that at best afford much less protection for only 6 moths at a time?
We now know that Pfizer fudged the mRNA trials and there's no reason to suppose these pills are all they're cracked up to be, either.
I smell a rat.
The left: