Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data reveals that 70% of vaccinated employees of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) contracted COVID.
On 3 March 2022, CDC Director Dr Rochelle Walensky gave a presentation at the University of Washington, during which she admitted that she had learned of the 95% effectiveness of the Pfizer shot from CNN, which relied on a Pfizer press release.
Walensky claims he was unaware that the injections could lose effectiveness over time. However, scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are very prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect the effectiveness of a vaccine or injection.
Walensky has also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white” when, in fact, “science is grey”. Meanwhile, anyone who has had an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored in order to stifle scientific debate, and Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to avoid a “black and white” presentation of science.
Walensky has also publicly discredited the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-administered by the FDA and CDC. The VAERS, which is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, reveals that COVID injections are the most dangerous injections ever created.
On 2 February 2022, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requesting the number of “breakthrough infections” among CDC employees in August 2021.
Emerging infections refer to infections occurring in those who have received one or more COVID vaccines. On 28 March 2022, ICAN issued a legal update, indicating that they had received an official response, showing that approximately 70% of all COVID-19 cases among CDC employees in August 2021 occurred among “vaccinated” employees.
“Now, we don’t know the percentage of CDC employees who were vaccinated in August 2021, but if CDC’s vaccination rate mirrors that of adults in the US, it was far less than 70 percent.
But even if more than 70% of CDC employees were vaccinated, the fact that by the end of summer 2021, 70% of its employees tested positive for COVID-19 and were vaccinated should have been a shocking figure and served as a wake-up call to CDC about the failure of these injections to prevent infections.”
According to ICAN, the CDC’s response included “a lot of caveats, i.e. excuses as to why the rate of advanced infections was so high, including that many CDC employees were teleworking at the time and were not required to report their vaccination status and/or any test results.
According to US Senator Bill Cassidy, who asked CDC Director Dr Rochelle Walensky about the percentage of vaccinated CDC employees during a Senate hearing on 4 November 2021, an estimated 75% of CDC employees were working remotely during the pandemic.
Walensky said he did not know the actual number, and the FOIA response also did not specify how many were working remotely. Either way, “These excuses are not convincing,” says ICAN, adding:
“There is no reason to believe that CDC employees would not disclose their vaccination status. Nor is there reason to believe that vaccinated people would be more likely to report that they tested positive for COVID-19. If anything, vaccinated people would have been less likely to report testing positive for COVID-19 because, as the CDC itself says, “people who have been vaccinated may be less likely to be tested.
Walensky says he did not realise that the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine might be diminished.
Interestingly, on 3 March 2022, the same day that the CDC responded to ICAN’s FOIA request for data on advanced infections among CDC employees, Walensky gave a presentation to medical students at the University of Washington during which he admitted that he had learned about the effectiveness of the Pfizer shot from CNN.
The CNN report, in turn, was based on a Pfizer press release, which stated that the shot was 95% effective. Walensky was not told, he said, that the injections could lose effectiveness over time (and a short time at that).
These are truly shocking admissions. Writing in The Disinformation Chronicle, investigative journalist Paul Thacker discussed the timeline of events that led Walensky to believe that Pfizer’s vaccine was 95% effective.
He concluded that Walensky was likely referring to a November 18, 2020 CNN report by Maggie Fox and Amanda Sealy, who appear to have done little to augment the story after extracting information from a Pfizer press release issued the same day.
So, what we have here is a remarkable example where a story on CNN, regurgitated from a press release, appears to have influenced Walensky’s thinking on the injections and future CDC guidance. As Thacker noted:
“Pfizer’s press release… became CDC pandemic policy… [U]s rarely gets such direct evidence of a corporation influencing federal policy by laundering its press release through media outlets like CNN. Also, republishing press releases seems to be a widespread practice in the way the media covers COVID-19 injections, which means they don’t report much. This has been obvious since the late 2020s.”
Walensky’s apparent ignorance of the potential for diminished efficacy is equally shocking. Scientists around the world have long known that coronaviruses are highly prone to mutation, and mutations are known to affect the effectiveness of an injection or vaccine.
Most scientists around the world expected the virus to mutate, because that’s what viruses do. However, Walensky did not consider this possibility, despite having been a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School with supposed years of experience dealing with viruses….
Even those with no expertise in virology suspect that mutations can affect the effectiveness of the injection. For example, two days after Walensky’s speech at the University of Washington, former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson wrote: “He’s right. No one could have known that variants could be a problem”.
Below, he retweeted a tweet dated 20 January 2021, in which he said, “Alert: vaccines probably won’t work against at least one new variant and they’ll want you to get vaccinated again next fall. “
By August, Twitter had permanently censured Berenson for “repeated violations of our COVID-19 disinformation rules”. Ironically, the tweet that put Twitter on edge likened the COVID injection to a “‘therapeutic’ with a limited window of efficacy…”, a claim that many other experts agree is 100% factual and true.
During his appearance at the University of Washington, Walensky also alluded to people in the media who “reject the evidence”, saying: “There are a lot of people who are using their voice that may or may not be helpful to public health”, and that this “diminishes overall public health”. So “we have to be clear” with our messages, he added.
However, Walensky’s admissions during that talk really make one wonder who is making our public health decisions and why. It is hard to imagine one of the largest and most powerful health care agencies in the US being led by a director who bases her decisions on CNN reports and pharmaceutical company press releases and, in doing so, misleads the public. Consider that during this talk, she:
Admitted to learning about Pfizer’s 95% efficacy, information that was then used to formulate the CDC guidelines, from a CNN report, which was nothing more than a republished Big Pharma press release.
He claimed that the CDC is transparently releasing data in a “ramp-up” scenario even though The New York Times, just days earlier, had revealed that the CDC is withholding crucial data from the public.
He claimed that “no one told him” that the virus could mutate and render the vaccine ineffective, yet during a Pfizer earnings call on 2 February 2021, a financial analyst was astute enough to ask Pfizer how it could change the 95% efficacy rate in light of the mutations.
Walensky also accused the public of believing that “science is black and white”, when in fact “science is grey”. Meanwhile, anyone who has had an opinion that differs from the mainstream narrative has been censored and falsely “fact-checked” so that the science debate never sees the light of day. Walensky has never spoken out against this effort to avoid a “black and white” presentation of science.
His colleague, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who as director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has been the face of COVID-19 for the White House, has even stated that he is the science and that attacking his recommendations is an attack on the science itself. Walensky, for some reason, never corrected him either.
Walensky has also publicly disparaged the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is co-administered by the FDA and his own agency, the CDC. During his testimony before the Senate on 11 January 2022, Walensky stated that any death following a vaccine or injection could be reported to VAERS.
Specifically, he used the example of a person who gets vaccinated and then is hit by a car and dies. He clearly implied that such a death would be registered with VAERS and recorded as an adverse reaction to the vaccine. But this is patently false.
First of all, adverse events are not automatically reported and certainly obvious accidents are not entered into the system as a suspected side effect of the vaccine.
There are about 18 reports in VAERS that include “traffic accident”, but most, if not all, relate to an adverse event, such as a heart attack, occurring while driving.
“If someone in public health says ‘a person can be hit by a car and report their death to VAERS,’ you should stop them, at any public meeting, and demand that they explain what motive a doctor would have to inflate VAERS reports with motor vehicle accidents. or any unrelated mortality?
Despite Walensky and Fauci’s clichéd testimony before Congress, no person “was hit by a car” and reported their own death to VAERS as a vaccine injury. Most reports are submitted by medical professionals, using diagnostic language about drug reactions”.
VAERS was designed and created as an early warning system and works well for that. While it is true that anyone can file a report, it is time-consuming, requires knowledge of medical details that a patient often will not have, and there are penalties for filing a false report. There is absolutely no reason to suspect, let alone assume, that people are filing false reports just to make vaccines look bad.
The fact is that VAERS is proving that COVID injections are the most dangerous injections ever created. It’s hard to imagine why Walensky would want to undermine confidence in this system, unless he wants everyone to simply ignore the warning signs that the vaccinated are giving us.
Death count after COVID injection ‘worse than a war’ – Dr Peter McCullough https://rumble.com/v10fffj-the-death-count-from-the-covid-jab-is-worse-than-a-war-dr.-mccullough.html
Cassidy also highlighted another area where the CDC has acted as if it is intentionally ignoring basic science, namely natural immunity.
Cassidy cited research showing that 92% of people who recover from COVID have T-cells, B-cells and antibodies that provide robust immunity. However, the CDC has refused to recognise natural immunity, saying that those who recover still need to be vaccinated against COVID.
Cassidy noted that the CDC has access to tens of thousands of electronic health records (EHRs) and patient identification data on who tested positive and had a symptomatic infection. With that data, they could easily confirm or refute claims that natural infection confers adequate protection against reinfection. And, if confirmed, those who have had a symptomatic infection could be excluded from vaccination mandates.
So why hasn’t the CDC conducted any prospective studies when they have identifiable patient EHRs that they can use to accurately determine who is reinfected and who is not? According to Cassidy, the only reason we don’t know if natural immunity is as good and confirm how many times it beats the COVID injection is “because we choose not to look”.
Walensky’s answers to Cassidy’s questions are as revealing as the admissions in her presentation at the University of Washington. There are many things she and the CDC apparently don’t know, including the basic basics.
Can a virus mutate? Walensky was “not told” it could, and therefore did not think it would. Can a mutation affect the effectiveness of the injection? Walensky was not aware of such a possibility and the CDC recommendations have reflected that ignorance.
How many CDC staff are working remotely, she has no idea. How many CDC employees have been injected, she has no idea. She has no idea. Why hasn’t basic research been done to determine if natural immunity is as adequate as injection? She provides a circular argument about not having unbiased correlative data, even though Cassidy already told her how the data they already have could be used to find this answer.
She congratulates herself on her agency’s transparency, while presenting evidence showing that the CDC is intentionally withholding crucial data on vaccines and injections. She says science is a grey area and, at the same time, accuses people of spreading misinformation when they disagree with it.
She lies about the types of adverse events that are reported to VAERS in what appears to be a blatant effort to undermine this valuable safety tool, and admits that she instead makes public health decisions based on Pfizer press releases. The fact that 7 out of 10 vaccinated CDC employees had advanced infections did not even indicate to Walensky the possibility that the COVID injection might be useless.
RFK Jr. overturns ‘safe and effective’ narrative with data from Pfizer’s own clinical trial https://rumble.com/v10fkxv-rfk-jr.-upends-the-safe-and-effective-narrative-with-data-from-pfizers-own-.html
On a side note, Princess Cruises recently revealed further evidence of this, when it reported an outbreak on board the Ruby Princess in March 2022, despite a 100% vaccination rate among crew and passengers, as well as requiring proof of negative COVID testing prior to embarkation.
How are we supposed to trust the CDC when they apparently know nothing that matters, don’t follow the science, and protect Big Pharma to the point of undermining confidence in their own safety tools?
It is absoulutely VITAL that you spread these articles and share them far and wide!
there will never be ads, nor paywalls on this website, so please donate if you can afford it to keep the website (and me) alive and kicking!