ADVERTISEMENT

More evidence Covid vaccine mandates were based on lies

raleighherdfan

Platinum Buffalo
Feb 22, 2010
18,534
11,009
113
Vaccine mandates all based on lies

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and former NIH Director Francis Collins were aware of, and discussed, “breakthrough cases” of COVID in January 2021 — right when the vaccines became widely available. In her email, Walensky says that “clearly,” it is an “important area of study,” links to a study raising the issue, and assures the person she is sending it to that Dr. Anthony Fauci is looped into these conversations.

However, in public, Walensky was saying something quite different. Two months after discussing this data, she said vaccinated people “don’t carry the virus” and “don’t get sick.” In a congressional hearing, after it became clear people were able to get infected with COVID even after receiving the vaccine, she defended her original statements by claiming it was true at the time she said it — namely, for the strands we were dealing with in early 2021.

We now know that was not true and that Walensky herself knew it was not true.

Jay Bhattacharya, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, called the revelation “stunning.” He pointed out that despite this knowledge, “they continued to push vax mandates anyway.”


This is the real scandal, as there is little harm in getting something like this wrong in a vacuum. After all, COVID-19 vaccines certainly saved many, many lives and reduced the severity of infection for many more. But the fact vaccine mandates were pushed, even though those in charge knew people could contract and spread the virus while vaccinated, is indefensible. That they mislead the public on this makes it even worse.

If the vaccine stopped COVID dead in its tracks, as Fauci explained, then the decision to institute a vaccine mandate would merely be a controversial yet ultimately legitimate public health measure. The fact it did not do that but rather had primarily personal benefits completely removes the justification for mandates.

The Biden administration tried to impose a vaccine mandate on employers, thousands of people were fired from their jobs, and there was a time when unvaccinated people were not even allowed into restaurants in some of the country’s largest cities.

And it was all based on a lie.
 
When they changed the definition of vaccine we should have all clued in. Even morons like Greed should have figured it out.

Reminds me, did I hear a news headline this morning about the first COVID infections in Wuhan?
 
First they used it to gain leverage in an election. Then, used it for control and manipulation. Then, to grow govt power.

It changed this country forever. Perhaps the biggest fraud and lie in this countries history and they learned how to use it.

Terrible abuses of power and manipulation and physcological warfare used on the American people. What they did to people should never be forgotten nor forgiven.
 
First they used it to gain leverage in an election. Then, used it for control and manipulation. Then, to grow govt power.

It changed this country forever. Perhaps the biggest fraud and lie in this countries history and they learned how to use it.

Terrible abuses of power and manipulation and physcological warfare used on the American people. What they did to people should never be forgotten nor forgiven.
That is all nonsense . You believe all the lies that Trump spews. Did Trump not plead to hurry up and get the vaccines made before the election. Did he not tell people to get vaccinated? After he said these things did he not say in the beginning it was a hoax? Did he not actually get covid himself?
 
That is all nonsense . You believe all the lies that Trump spews. Did Trump not plead to hurry up and get the vaccines made before the election. Did he not tell people to get vaccinated? After he said these things did he not say in the beginning it was a hoax? Did he not actually get covid himself?
Good news Greed!! Oldies back and you are not the biggest moron on board
 
Last edited:
How's that Georgia thing going for you?? How's it going for your orange jesus??

Going good. Georgia only has a 62% felony conviction rate, and when you figure most those cases charge people with actual crimes and they still can’t convict them, it’s looking bright.
 
  • Like
Reactions: big_country90
Going good. Georgia only has a 62% felony conviction rate, and when you figure most those cases charge people with actual crimes and they still can’t convict them, it’s looking bright.
Cool story. But I doubt those people with actual crimes had a televised audience, dozens of witnesses, recorded phone calls admitting the crime, and indicted accomplices willing to flip to stay out of jail. As D.A., her office has close to a 90 percent conviction rate.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 19MU88
Cool story. But I doubt those people with actual crimes had a televised audience, dozens of witnesses, recorded phone calls admitting the crime, and indicted accomplices willing to flip to stay out of jail. As D.A., her office has close to a 90 percent conviction rate.
 
The FDA is completely captured and broken.

We still don't have randomized evidence Paxlovid works in vaccinated people (pending a UK funded study), yet we in the U.S. have just given Pfizer billions and authorized it to give this drug out like candy for anyone with COVID.

We have zero randomized trials that any vaccine boosters at this point are helpful. Some well done studies suggest a segment of the population (young, fit males) may be net negative for boosting.

I will not take another shot unless I see some data. It would be easy to run the trials.
 
Cool story. But I doubt those people with actual crimes had a televised audience, dozens of witnesses, recorded phone calls admitting the crime, and indicted accomplices willing to flip to stay out of jail. As D.A., her office has close to a 90 percent conviction rate.
^^moron^^
 
The FDA is completely captured and broken.

We still don't have randomized evidence Paxlovid works in vaccinated people (pending a UK funded study), yet we in the U.S. have just given Pfizer billions and authorized it to give this drug out like candy for anyone with COVID.

We have zero randomized trials that any vaccine boosters at this point are helpful. Some well done studies suggest a segment of the population (young, fit males) may be net negative for boosting.

I will not take another shot unless I see some data. It would be easy to run the trials.
whatever ever happened to the monoclonal antibody treatments?
 
whatever ever happened to the monoclonal antibody treatments?

they don't work that well...partially because either prior vaccine or prior infection is a pretty good protectant against severe disease....and ongoing viral mutations.

At this point almost everyone has had covid.

We have very little (or none) evidence about what actually helps much other than supportive care. Anyone who tells you dogmatically that a booster or paxlovid or an antibody or ivermectin "works" for someone that has already had covid or multiple vaccines isn't telling you that with any level 1 evidence. They may actually believe it, but it's not backed by any legitimate clinical trials.

Caveat is I'm not a covid expert. I do know how to read clinical trials (I believe better than an average doctor..I have written phase 1/2 trials and actively enroll patients in trials. I have phd level courses in clinical trial design and analysis) and I have zero agenda on this. I took the vax and booster #1. I'm done though unless I see more data. I won't take paxlovid unless I see a trial that it shows it'll help me. My children (already infected with covid) will not be vax'd. I'd gladly give them other scheduled vaccines.

And as always, I'd always take real medical advice from your in person doctor. Not some as*hole on the internet blowing off steam.
 
I've hate Fox for years and haven't watched in years, you moron.
^^^^

images
 
How's that Georgia thing going for you?? Still waiting on the fake electors? You might could go to Fulton County and get autographs...
Great. I've repeatedly said this country needs to go through this. The media and government cannot be trusted so these trials may be the only way. Only the stupidest of idiots still support the installed Biden regime whether they like trump or not.
 
Last edited:
Great. I've repeatedly see this country needs to go through this. The media and government cannot be trusted so these trials may be the only way. Only the stupidest of idiots still support the installed Biden regime whether they like trump or not.
You're a liar.
 
The FDA is completely captured and broken.

We still don't have randomized evidence Paxlovid works in vaccinated people (pending a UK funded study), yet we in the U.S. have just given Pfizer billions and authorized it to give this drug out like candy for anyone with COVID.

We have zero randomized trials that any vaccine boosters at this point are helpful. Some well done studies suggest a segment of the population (young, fit males) may be net negative for boosting.

I will not take another shot unless I see some data. It would be easy to run the trials.
It is a shame that you or someone like you isn’t heading the CDC and FDA instead of the clowns we seem to have now. You always make your case using data and a clear, non emotional, logical presentation. Be careful, they’ll be coming to discredit you.
 
It is a shame that you or someone like you isn’t heading the CDC and FDA instead of the clowns we seem to have now. You always make your case using data and a clear, non emotional, logical presentation. Be careful, they’ll be coming to discredit you.
I rant about it on here but in my day to day I don't deal with a ton of covid policy stuff. One of the health policy medical oncoligists I used to read a lot (and had a great podcast on cancer care) became interested in Covid, so I tried to stay up to date and read. In the real world, I stay in my lane, head down, and take care of patients.

I appreciate the comments though.

There is a LOT of conflict of interest out there in covid policy world though.

In good news teh Biden admin is starting to negotiate prices on drugs on behalf of medicare/CMS. We (the US) subsidizes health care/drugs throughout the world and it probably needs to stop. The same drugs in Canada or the EU are fractions of the prices. Unfortunately because the FDA is a revolving door of admins in and out of pharma I don't have a lot of faith we'll get what is best for the tax payer out of these negotiations. But it's a good start.
 
But that price we pay is higher/subsidizing the rest of the world.
yes!!!

and this theme goes way beyond prescription drugs..........I guess this is why our government doesn't want the American voter to select the President..................really quite simple to see. Our politicians and the rest of the world get a great deal and the American tax payer is screwed again.
 
But that price we pay is higher/subsidizing the rest of the world.
Ahhh. A great political slogan both sides now eagerly chant for sure. "We subsidize the rest of the world"...yet the rest of the world's health systems cant deliver the care we have come to take for granted here. You really want to practice medicine in Britain or even Canada?

We are "subsidizing" the ability for US companies across the health system to profit and invest back into the US health system. We are "subsidizing" the ability for hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharma, med device, research to make money which keeps the system afloat, and makes us the overall best health system in the world. (but no one wants to pay for it)

Always amazing to me that people working in the health system and making money in the system always point to the other guy in the system as the problem and want the govt to fix it. What we are experiencing now is "the govt fixing it". You are linked to every one of these components of the health system. I am too. How would the govt forcing you to make less money be good for me; how would a hospital making less money be good for medical device/pharma research? It wouldn't. The price increases we see are because govt "fixes"; both state's CONs and the Fed's CMS are just 2 examples which limit competition. There are endless other regulatory reasons for higher healthcare prices and too many to mention here.

Thats not to say I dont recognize problems within the system. I do. But I've been around long enough to experience anytime anyone thinks a bureaucrat can "fix" anything...the little guy patient will be hosed big time. This is another basic economics 101. As the new drug law is written, it is a govt mandated price control. When you artificially control price, 2 things happen. Higher prices, less of the product. This will be no different.

Just like Obummacare gutted rural healthcare, forced system consolidation, decreased competition by reducing reimbursement to select groups...this too will have consequences that will ripple across the system. Whats going to happen when these patients cant get the "expensive" medication that is keeping them out of the hospital and reducing their office visits?
 
Ahhh. A great political slogan both sides now eagerly chant for sure. "We subsidize the rest of the world"...yet the rest of the world's health systems cant deliver the care we have come to take for granted here. You really want to practice medicine in Britain or even Canada?

We are "subsidizing" the ability for US companies across the health system to profit and invest back into the US health system. We are "subsidizing" the ability for hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharma, med device, research to make money which keeps the system afloat, and makes us the overall best health system in the world. (but no one wants to pay for it)

Always amazing to me that people working in the health system and making money in the system always point to the other guy in the system as the problem and want the govt to fix it. What we are experiencing now is "the govt fixing it". You are linked to every one of these components of the health system. I am too. How would the govt forcing you to make less money be good for me; how would a hospital making less money be good for medical device/pharma research? It wouldn't. The price increases we see are because govt "fixes"; both state's CONs and the Fed's CMS are just 2 examples which limit competition. There are endless other regulatory reasons for higher healthcare prices and too many to mention here.

Thats not to say I dont recognize problems within the system. I do. But I've been around long enough to experience anytime anyone thinks a bureaucrat can "fix" anything...the little guy patient will be hosed big time. This is another basic economics 101. As the new drug law is written, it is a govt mandated price control. When you artificially control price, 2 things happen. Higher prices, less of the product. This will be no different.

Just like Obummacare gutted rural healthcare, forced system consolidation, decreased competition by reducing reimbursement to select groups...this too will have consequences that will ripple across the system. Whats going to happen when these patients cant get the "expensive" medication that is keeping them out of the hospital and reducing their office visits?

But who is setting that price?

Is there any negotiation at all about what a drug is worth?

I just don’t buy that the status quo system is the best we can do.

In addition, we have the FDA approving garbage cancer drugs on surrogate endpoints - and cost the system billions. Or the new alzheimer's drug for instance. Absolute garbage. Incredible cost.

if Canada or the EU get access to the same drugs (of course there are issues with those health systems, but drug access isn't always one of them) at a fraction of the cost, why can we not do so?

In general I agree with a lot of what you say - in health care, you can pick two of three - fast, cost effective, or high quality. There are always trade offs.

Maybe i'm being too simplistic here, but if pharma company has a drug and they say "this drug costs X." Why is the U.S. paying X (without negotiation), but Canada or EU is paying 0.25X?

Some of these drugs are amazing, but just letting pharma (and a ridiculously low FDA clearance bar) set a price is crazy to me.
 
America Last policy on every issue. Strange decisions when leaders never put your country first, most nations do.

Oh well the media doesn't seem concerned or challenge anyone. Let's just move on, pay taxes and wait and see who they allow us to vote for.
 
But who is setting that price?

Is there any negotiation at all about what a drug is worth?
Who sets the price of your bill? Who sets the price of a hospital visit? Can patients negotiate your bill?

Who "sets the price" of anything you're being charged?

if Canada or the EU get access to the same drugs
Thats the thing...they dont.

Canada and Europe dont get access to the same drugs

For some countries, delays can last years. When the life-changing cystic fibrosis drug Kalydeco was approved in Europe nearly 10 years ago, patient groups were thrilled. But, even today, it's only available in 17 of the EU’s 27 countries. And, in two of those countries, it’s not routinely reimbursed.

“I want you to look at ways to help ensure Europe has the supply of affordable medicines to meet its needs,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote in her mission letter to Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides in December 2019 — quite a challenge for the EU considering that health care is managed and delivered nationally.
 
Who sets the price of your bill? Who sets the price of a hospital visit? Can patients negotiate your bill?

Who "sets the price" of anything you're being charged?


Thats the thing...they dont.

Canada and Europe dont get access to the same drugs

For some countries, delays can last years. When the life-changing cystic fibrosis drug Kalydeco was approved in Europe nearly 10 years ago, patient groups were thrilled. But, even today, it's only available in 17 of the EU’s 27 countries. And, in two of those countries, it’s not routinely reimbursed.

“I want you to look at ways to help ensure Europe has the supply of affordable medicines to meet its needs,” Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote in her mission letter to Health Commissioner Stella Kyriakides in December 2019 — quite a challenge for the EU considering that health care is managed and delivered nationally.

CMS sets a baseline rate for a hospital stay (or a rate for a CPT code) for medicare. But they have zero say as to what a drug should cost. Am I wrong about that?

The example you're giving (and in the article) is for a cystic fibrosis drug - a rare entity. The article mentions "cancer drugs" but it's my understanding (could be wrong) that common but very expensive cancer drugs like immunotherapy are available in Canada/EU. Hell, they often enroll and run the trials that show efficacy.

Look at immunotherapy costs in US vs. Canada/EU. Those cancer drugs are bankrupting CMS...yet are very much accessible in Canada/EU at fraction of price. Used MUCH more widely than a CF drug.

I will say Canada and EU are not keen on getting the people access to expensive drugs that do have some efficacy but not a ton. Think like a drug shown to prolong survival maybe 3 months. IN the US that gets FDA approval and access. in the EU it often does not.
 
...I'm not smart enough to know the solution..

But if the company needs $X/drug to make it worth while to do all the R and D on the drug, etc....then the cost to the U.S. should be proportional to the usage of that drug in the country. We should not be giving massive discounts to other countries. The system now is broken.

Aggressive pressure on other countries is needed. By what mechanism I'm not sure.
 
CMS sets a baseline rate for a hospital stay (or a rate for a CPT code) for medicare. But they have zero say as to what a drug should cost. Am I wrong about that?

The example you're giving (and in the article) is for a cystic fibrosis drug - a rare entity. The article mentions "cancer drugs" but it's my understanding (could be wrong) that common but very expensive cancer drugs like immunotherapy are available in Canada/EU. Hell, they often enroll and run the trials that show efficacy.

Look at immunotherapy costs in US vs. Canada/EU. Those cancer drugs are bankrupting CMS...yet are very much accessible in Canada/EU at fraction of price. Used MUCH more widely than a CF drug.

I will say Canada and EU are not keen on getting the people access to expensive drugs that do have some efficacy but not a ton. Think like a drug shown to prolong survival maybe 3 months. IN the US that gets FDA approval and access. in the EU it often does not.
The article dealt with more than cystic fibrosis. Read it again. The first part of the article addressed nothing but cancer treatments:

While its system ensures that every new cancer drug, for example, is approved for use across the EU — that doesn’t mean every cancer patient in Europe has access to that new drug. In fact, far from it.

Access to the best new treatments is a postcode lottery, subject to national and regional health-system rules, pricing and reimbursement negotiations, drug companies’ launch plans and the ability of local health care to deliver new treatments.


It’s a complex web of barriers that, at every turn, delays access to sometimes life-saving medicines. And it’s often the least wealthy countries that face the longest delays.

My point stands. Govt enforced "price controls", will ultimately limit availability to drugs as this article demonstrates. CMS has been great for making big health systems bigger, reducing competition, limiting transparency for billing, consolidating provider groups, and decimating rural health care (aka driving HC prices higher). Have your office visit charges come down as a result of your CMS reimbursement policies?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT