Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

> Cunt Walensky resigned.


Farewell Questions For Rochelle Walensky

https://brownstone.org/articles/farewell-questions-for-rochelle-walensky/

Authored by El Gato Malo via The Brownstone Institute,

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/moving-the-goalposts-on-safe-part
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/cdc-passes-the-point-where-malfeasance
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/how-do-you-miss-the-most-blatant
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/yes-the-vaccines-were-supposed-to
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/cdc-quietly-removes-a-massive-claim
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.08.21252200v1
https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1653118377097871363

Given what we now know about the complete failure of covid vaccines to
provide sterilizing immunity, stop infection, or stop spread as well
as the fact that such issues were not even tested for in the drug
trials that approved them, certain questions would seem to demand
asking:

Just what was this “Data from the CDC today” that suggested that
“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus?”

Was there, in fact, any data at all?

Or was this a completely fabricated claim used to underpin the mass
rollout of a product that failed so spectacularly right out of the
gates and:

    Where the sorts of safety and inefficacy signals that would have
pulled any other vaccine in history off the market were ignored

    Where the data collection was rigged to make known adverse events
difficult to find, report, and aggregate in the V-safe system by
removing them from searchable database fields and placing them in free
text response.

    And where the mandated safety assessments were not being performed
until long after problems were evident, allowing the CDC to miss the
most blatant safety signal in history.

There seem to be an awfully large body of claims made by CDC that
appear to have lacked foundation in fact or data. Both Dr Walensky and
her predecessor Robert Redfield would seem to have a great deal to
answer for here.

    “The covid vaccine will make the vaccinated a dead end for the virus.”

This talking point was simply everywhere all at once.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla certainly pushed this narrative.  Presumably,
the fact that he was allowed to do so (itself quite an exceptional
situation) implies the acquiescence of FDA, CDC, and other regulators.

Upon what was this seemingly widespread consensus based?

The matter appears to have never even been studied at the time the
claims were made.

Why were the usually strict and fastidious US regulators so sanguine
about such unusually aggressive and certain statements?

This is a most unusual situation and such an extraordinary outcome
would seem to demand an extraordinary explanation.

Yet none seems forthcoming.

“The mRNA and the spike protein do not last long in the body”
constitutes another key early safety claim similarly rooted in opaque
or absent evidence or perhaps simply assumed or invented. (before
being quietly retracted later).

"Protein do not last long in the body” was a key early safety claim
similarly rooted in opaque or absent evidence or perhaps simply
assumed or invented. (before being quietly retracted later).

This claim also proved extravagantly incorrect.

Wherever one looks, it seems one finds that these grand claims of
safety and efficacy were underpinned by a paucity or utter absence of
supporting evidence.

Even the definitions themselves such as “Any positive for trace covid
from a PCR test at a 40 Cycle Threshold is covid” or “No disease
outcomes from vaccines are to be counted until 2 weeks after the
second (or third) dose” which left a large window (4-6 weeks) during a
period of known immune suppression from the jabs uncounted or even, in
many cases, attributed to the unvaccinated in a manner that can make
placebo look like high efficacy preventative are so unusual and
inconsistent with past practice or sound science as to demand the most
pointed of questions as to how such practices came to be and who the
decision makers who put them in place were.

This series of unfounded claims and distortionary definitions seems
both a poor and a deeply dangerous practice for Public Health.

If we are to have any hope of restoring faith in this field, we must
ask and answer the pointed questions of “How did this happen?” and “At
whose behest?”

Someone made these choices for some reason. Who and why would seem to
be the bare minimum of post mortem here.

It is oft opined that a bad map is worse than no map at all and in
this, I must wholeheartedly agree. The public health agencies in
America have become the most calamitous of cartographers.

If we would seek to have the agents of public health act as something
other than a marketing arm and apologist for the revolving door of
Pharma with whom they seem to so regularly swap staff and sinecure
then it must once more be turned to serve the public. It may do so
only if it regains the public trust and such trust, once lost, may
only be restored by asking the hard questions and diligently following
the answers wherever so they may lead until we may understand what
went wrong, hold the malefactors to account, and effect the means to
prevent this from happening again.

Please make no mistake, if nothing is done and this is swept beneath
some august Congressional rug or societal memory hole, it will happen
again. And soon. This is not a choice I would have for America and one
I do not believe you should countenance.

Public health runs on public trust.

I ask you to restore it.