CDC Director admits 'too little caution and too much optimism' over covid vaccines

[JustSomeBloke]

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky: Too Little Caution and Too Much Optimism...

Transcript (my emphasis):

"... could we have improved? Um, well, you know i think, I can tell you where I was when the cnn feed came that it was 95 effective on the vaccine. So many of us wanted to be helpful, so many of us wanted to say okay this is our ticket out right now, we're done. Um, so I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism, um for some good things that came our way. I, I really do, I think all of us wanted this to be done. Nobody said waning, when, when, you know this vaccine is going to work, oh well maybe it'll work it'll wear off. Um, nobody said well what if the next variant doesn't, it doesn't, it's not as potent against the next variant ..."

Youtube:

Rumble:
CDC Director Admits ‘Too Much Optimism’ Over Waning Covid Vaccines

Twitter:
https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1499902332980523008

 

[Tanj]

Rumble, twitter and youtube. I despair for our species.

 

[Rachel20]

They're beginning to admit all the things the censored docs and scientists were saying from the beginning. It's the withholding of data that might be criminal, though (fraud).

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Rumble, twitter and youtube. I despair for our species.

What would be considered an acceptable form of evidence? I doubt any of the 'trusted sources' MSM will report this, as it doesn't fit the misinformation and pro-vaxx propaganda they've been spouting for the last two years. In any case, I don't really see a viable means to refute this video evidence, unless someone is going to claim that it's some kind of deep fake, and the CDC Director never said any of that.

They're beginning to admit all the things the censored docs and scientists were saying from the beginning. It's the withholding of data that might be criminal, though (fraud).

From that point of view, it may be about to get rather messy. A judge has rejected the FDA's request to release information so slowly that it would have taken 75 years to release all the covid vaccine trial data. The whole lot will now have to be released over a period of months rather than years.

What has been released so far can be found here:
Pfizer's Documents - Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency

Of particular interest is document 5.3.6. which is the 'Post Marketing Experience'. In this document, we can learn what really happened in some of the trials. For example:

Table 7 (page 16) is a list of Adverse Events of Special Interest, and it reads like a horror show. How many governments can honestly say that the informed consent information they distributed prior to vaccination included all of that?

 

[Tanj]

What would be considered an acceptable form of evidence?

Anything that involves some kind of fact checking or curation.

I'm not going to be dragged into JSB's grab bag of context stripped fear porn either.

 

[Rachel20]

Another admittance, this one by a Bayer exec - the mRNA "vaccines" were gene & cell therapy. But if they had called it that, they "would have probably had a 95% refusal rate"

here at ~8:37

 

[hedrick]

I think the headline is misleading. The problem is that there wasn’t enough caution about numbers, not so much the vaccines. 95% reduction in cases hasn’t continued, but 80z, or 75% for omicron has. That’s still a big win from both individual and public health.

 

[JustSomeBloke]

Anything that involves some kind of fact checking or curation.

What kind of 'factchecked' article would be acceptable? Would Politifact be appropriate? If so, here's an example of one of their recent offerings.

PolitiFact - The U.S. did not double oil imports from Russia in the last year

But when the article is opened, the reader discovers that the 'factchecker' has blatantly contradicted themself!

Why on earth would anyone want to believe self-styled 'factcheckers', who say one thing in a headline (knowing that most people won't bother opening it and reading the text), and the exact opposite in the text of the 'factcheck'?

I'm not going to be dragged into JSB's grab bag of context stripped fear porn either.

Table 7 on page 16 is what it is. A long list of serious adverse effects. I can well understand why that's hard to defend. I guess we just have to wait for the lawsuits now.

I think the headline is misleading. The problem is that there wasn’t enough caution about numbers, not so much the vaccines. 95% reduction in cases hasn’t continued, but 80z, or 75% for omicron has. That’s still a big win from both individual and public health.

Bottom line: The experts turned out not to be experts, and huge numbers of people were forced to choose between a mandatory injection or losing their job, all based on CDC misinformation.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's almost as if people should have been free to opt in or opt out of a new medical treatment which had no long term testing.

 

[Rachel20]

I think the headline is misleading. The problem is that there wasn’t enough caution about numbers, not so much the vaccines. 95% reduction in cases hasn’t continued, but 80z, or 75% for omicron has. That’s still a big win from both individual and public health.

To be clear, the 95% figure never referred to absolute risk reduction, but to relative risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, the absolute risk reduction of contracting Covid-19 was 0.70% - with the unvaccinated risk being 0.70% and the vaccinated 0.04%.

 

[Tanj]

Table 7 on page 16 is what it is. A long list of serious adverse effects. I can well understand why that's hard to defend. I guess we just have to wait for the lawsuits now.

Yeah, good luck with that. Your report is over a year old, and I fully rebutted in the last time it raised its head on this forum. I see no need to repeat the process with this current regurgitation.

Bottom line: The experts turned out not to be experts, and huge numbers of people were forced to choose between a mandatory injection or losing their job, all based on CDC misinformation.

Ahh yes, the good ol' US is the only country in the world and no one else exists delusion. Previously dealt with that one as well.

 

[A_Thinker]

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky: Too Little Caution and Too Much Optimism...

Transcript (my emphasis):

"... could we have improved? Um, well, you know i think, I can tell you where I was when the cnn feed came that it was 95 effective on the vaccine. So many of us wanted to be helpful, so many of us wanted to say okay this is our ticket out right now, we're done. Um, so I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism, um for some good things that came our way. I, I really do, I think all of us wanted this to be done. Nobody said waning, when, when, you know this vaccine is going to work, oh well maybe it'll work it'll wear off. Um, nobody said well what if the next variant doesn't, it doesn't, it's not as potent against the next variant ..."

Youtube:

Rumble:
CDC Director Admits ‘Too Much Optimism’ Over Waning Covid Vaccines

Twitter:
https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1499902332980523008

Thousands of people dying every day puts a little fire in the furnace ...

 

[A_Thinker]

Another admittance, this one by a Bayer exec - the mRNA "vaccines" were gene & cell therapy. But if they had called it that, they "would have probably had a 95% refusal rate"

here at ~8:37

The speaker is not a scientist, nor a doctor, ... rather, a managerial member of Pfizer's board of directors.

Managers frequently get their details wrong. As an engineer, I would sometimes cringe at the statements of my company's board and management.

Now, from doctor/scientist ... Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD ...
Fact-Check: Dr. Mercola’s “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions”

 

[Rachel20]

The speaker is not a scientist, not a doctor, ... rather, a managerial member of Pfizer's board of directors.

Then here's a doc saying same thing. Many have been saying it. You just needed to do a web search using something other than google (which is not your friend)

Here's the actual video he shared -

https://twitter.com/i/status/1500229142444392448

 

[A_Thinker]

Then here's a doc saying same thing. Many have been saying it. You just needed to do a web search using something other than google (which is not your friend)

View attachment 313748

Here's the actual video he shared -

https://twitter.com/i/status/1500229142444392448

Your expert's argument is that the Miriam-Webster dictionary, a non-medical publication, ... just recently expanded it's definition of a vaccine to include MRNA "vaccines".

He then went on to pose an emotional argument of "would you be comfortable taking a dose of a drug every half-year or so ... to keep from dying from COVID ... AND would you consider that your family, friends, and neighbors should also be highly motivated to take the "drug". That, essentially, was the whole of his argument.

It's a rather vacant argument, given that some persons take medications every day to manage symptoms of diseases that they are afflicted with.

So ... even a hypothetical six-month frequency ... would not be out of the ranges of medical norm.

I should also note that he made no argument in regard to MRNA vaccines being "gene therapy" ...

 

[Rachel20]

I should also note that he made no argument in regard to MRNA vaccines being "gene therapy" ...

Dr McCullough referred to it as "gene transfer therapy", not sure how you can miss or deny that.

 

[Rachel20]

Your expert's argument is that the Miriam-Webster dictionary, a non-medical publication, ...

Dr Doshi is associate editor of the BMJ - British Medical Journal. A weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal. You're coming off as defensive now, rather than open-minded. So good day.

 

[A_Thinker]

Dr Doshi is associate editor of the BMJ - British Medical Journal. A weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal. You're coming off as defensive now, rather than open-minded. So good day.

I just actually listened to his argument ... and commented upon it.

Is it your position that I have misrepresented his comments in some way ... ???

 

[Rachel20]

Is it your position that I have misrepresented his comments in some way ... ???

You appealed to authority (#13), so I gave you one. Then you claimed he made no argument "in regard to mRNA vaccines being gene therapy" (#15) inspite of fact Dr McCullough called them "gene transfer therapy" and Dr Doshi stated they didn't meet the traditional definition of "vaccine" in place for 15 years (don't prevent infection and stop transmission).

So lets see ... they use mRNA and they're not traditional vaccines. Are you simply objecting to the description "gene or cell therapy" ? I think the whole point of the video in #6 was to expose the dishonesty in calling them "vaccines" because they knew people would confuse them with traditional vaccines, which they felt safe with.