When is a lie not a lie? When MSM refuses to call Biden on his lies. Biden did it again. Told a whopper and gets away with it. The latest?
“No president has had the run we’ve had in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation. It was 9% when I came to office — 9%,” the 81-year-old president said on Wednesday, when inflation was just 1.4% when he came into office in Jan. 2021.
Biden asks MSM to not report his asinine, lying, fake news, and mental lapses. Oh those weren’t his words, but that’s what he meant. Below are his words.
I’m sincerely not asking of you to take sides but asking you to rise up to the seriousness of the moment; move past the horserace numbers and the gotcha moments and the distractions, the sideshows that have come to dominate and sensantio- — sensationalize our politics; and focus on what’s actually at stake. I think, in your hearts, you know what’s at stake. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
So he’s asking the media to not cover the truth or show his mental miscues and the weaponization of the justice department.
More of Biden’s lies.
“He said he wants to be a dictator on day one,” Biden told the crowd of journalists, lawmakers, celebrities and others, characterizing remarks Trump repeatedly made about the southern border and drilling efforts. “He promised a bloodbath when he loses again. We have to take this seriously. Eight years ago we could’ve written it off as just Trump talk but no longer.”
Yes Virginia, Biden and the Pentagon lied. New evidence challenges the Pentagon’s account of a horrific attack as the US withdrew from Afghanistan.
“He spoke fluently Dari,” he said. “He told me, ‘What are you doing, Doctor? You love your life. You love your family. This is not good when you are collecting that data. It would make a big dangerous situation for you. You should stop that as soon as possible.’”
The man called another time to repeat the warning, and Ahmadi advised his team to stop recording data and destroy the evidence they had collected.
The Pentagon, in response to Ahmadi’s initial anonymous statement to CNN in 2022 that he had treated gunshot wounds, said that he was mistaken. They said bullet and ball-bearing injuries are hard to distinguish – a claim disputed by multiple combat medics who spoke to CNN, and by Ahmadi himself.
Ahmadi said he was never approached by American investigators.
“I hope one day they ask me,” he said. “Now I am safe. I feel well… Sometimes just this secret that I have in my mind haunts me.”
Pentagon spokesman Lodewick said no Afghans were interviewed for the original AR 15-6 investigation “because its scope and focus on US operations did not demand it.” He said the supplemental review was “even more refined” in its scope, focusing more on events before the blast and the bomber, “and again presented no overwhelming need for the pursuit of external Afghan-centric information.”
Accounts from US servicemen of the aftermath have often been dismissed by officials as the product of blast concussion, or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). As Marine survivors leave active duty and continue to struggle with their trauma and an official narrative that jars with their personal experience, their dissent has grown.
CNN spoke with about ten Marines anonymously, many of whom described hearing gunfire and feeling under attack from it. Some have reported seeing what they thought was a militant gunman. The Pentagon has insisted no other gunmen opened fire in the area at the time of the attack, bar US and UK troops. No American or Afghan witness has specifically stated they directly saw a militant open fire.
One Marine, who decided to speak out of conscience and requested anonymity, fearing reprisals for his account, has become the first American eyewitness to describe shots fired from where US personnel were located. He said that the burst of gunfire after the explosion – heard by witnesses on the ground and audible in the new video – came from the area around the Abbey Gate sniper tower, where US Marines were grouped.
While he could not be certain the Marines had fired directly into the crowd of Afghan civilians in front of them, he said: “They would not have fired into the air.” Marines had been told to not fire warnings shots, he said, as these rounds fired in the air often landed later in civilian areas. “It wasn’t a direct order,” he added. “But it was a common understanding: no warning shots.” He said he did not think any of the shots fired in the four-minute window of gunfire audible on the new video would have been warning shots.
Public orders issued in the Navy in December 2020 banned warning shots unless specifically permitted on deployment. The Pentagon’s report said Marines from the 2/1 unit that made up most of those on the scene “did not use warning shots and only used flash bang grenades infrequently.” The Marine said he did not see any US military open fire and did not fire himself.
The Marine calmly described key details of blast and its aftermath, but became emotional when discussing the Pentagon’s investigations, including what he described as a lack of transparency about what happened, and the possible role Marine gunfire played in raising the Afghan civilian death toll.
But he defended the immediate response of his colleagues under attack. “The reaction that the Marines had was a reaction that I believe anybody trained to do in that scenario would have had,” he said, suggesting they were in the first phase of the three-stage practice of RTR – Returning fire, Taking cover and then Returning accurate fire.
“You’ve got to think, these are kids,” he said. “They’re young. And they’ve only been taught what they’ve been taught. Some of these kids had been with the unit for quite literally two, three months prior to deployment. They didn’t have the training to be able to recognize some of the things that, you know, might have occurred – nor could you have the training for what had happened on August 26. Or really what happened in Kabul.”
He said the significant gunfire response from Marines after the blast was common knowledge among Marine survivors, even though it was not spoken of publicly. “It’s incredibly weird,” he said. “It’s frustrating, you know? Why hide from what happened?”
Reacting to the Pentagon’s dismissal of accounts from US personnel who recalled gunfire as the product of TBI, the Marine said: “It’s a pathetic excuse. To say that every Marine, every soldier, every Navy corpsman on the deck has a traumatic brain injury and cannot remember gunfire is, is lunacy. It’s outright disrespectful. And especially for it to come from somebody that wasn’t there.”
“To the Afghani [sic] families – I’m sorry that after 20 years of war, that that is the way that this (was) conducted. And that we weren’t able to uphold a promise that we gave your people after removing the Taliban in 2001. And it should not have ended like that.”
Many of the 10 other Marines with whom CNN spoke anonymously also describe gunfire. One told CNN that he ran through a hole in the fence outside the Abbey Gate in the minute after the blast to assist with the wounded. As he emerged, he said, he heard suppressed rifle fire nearby from another Marine. Many US Marines’ rifles were fitted with suppressors, reducing the noise of their fire, according to footage from the incident.
“I would probably say five, 10 meters away from me, was where it was,” he said. He said the Marine firing was not from his own unit, and after he had opened fire, “whoever was shooting at us wasn’t shooting at us anymore.”
Another Marine told CNN he was about 20 meters (65 feet) from the blast. “There was definitely, shooting,” he said. “Snapping over our heads after the blast and it wasn’t the Taliban.” He said he used his rifle optic to look at the Taliban, who were some distance away on nearby shipping containers used to control access to the Abbey Gate area. “When I looked over at them, none of them were holding their guns. They looked just as shocked as us.” Other US servicemen who said they witnessed gunfire in the aftermath of the bombing have spoken out on social media.
Sgt. Romel Finley, who received a Purple Heart, said that another sergeant ordered US troops into position to open fire after the bomb blast. Finley told The Brrks YouTube channel, a social media account run by a former Marine and Master Barber which interviews active or former Marines, that he recalled, while being dragged from the scene, “My platoon sergeant running past us, saying ‘get back on that wall and shoot back at those motherf**kers.’ So I was like, we are in a gunfight too.”
Finley, who sustained significant leg injuries in the attack, added that he did not witness Marines firing, or responding to the order. He declined to comment to CNN, as did his platoon sergeant. CNN is withholding the names of Marines who did not specifically consent to being identified in interviews.
Christian Sanchez, another Marine survivor, who was injured in his left arm, told the same Brrks Barber channel that he opened fire after the blast. “All I see is flashes. And all I could hear was ringing. Like all hear is ringing and f**king flashes going on. And I start hearing snaps. And I start realizing that that’s a f**king dude shooting at me,” he said. “And I just started shooting at the dude,” he added, breaking down. Sanchez also declined to speak to CNN about his recollections and it is unclear if he specifically saw the purported militant gunman open fire. Another American military survivor who spoke to CNN said he had endured two years of “leadership saying what you saw was basically not the truth.” He summarized the two investigations as: “Shut your mouth. We’ll talk for you.”
Significant gaps remain in the evidence presented by the Pentagon. Investigators have only released five edited minutes of drone footage from the aftermath, which they said supported their findings that no gunfire hit anyone.
A recent congressional hearing for the then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and then-Central Command Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie ended with Congressman Darrell Issa presenting the two generals with a list of unpublished video that, under a Freedom of Information Act request, the Pentagon had admitted they held. The generals told the session they had seen the videos, and that it should be released to congressional investigators.
Stories we sometimes miss. Exposed: Moderna’s Vaccine Against Vaccine Dissent.
Lee Fang, RealClearInvestigations & LeeFang.com
Finances at the vaccine manufacturer Moderna began to fall almost as quickly as they had risen, as most Americans resisted getting yet another COVID booster shot. The pharmaceutical company, whose pioneering mRNA vaccine had turned it from small startup to biotech giant worth more than $100 billion in just a few years, reported a third-quarter loss last year of $3.6 billion.
In a September call aimed at shoring up investors, Moderna’s then–chief commercial officer, Arpa Garay, attributed some of the hesitancy pummeling Moderna’s numbers to uninformed vaccine skeptics. “Despite some misinformation,” Garay said, COVID-19 still drove significant hospitalizations. “It really is a vaccine that’s relevant across all age groups,” she insisted.
To get past the “misinformation” and convince the public to take continual booster shots, Garay briefly noted that Moderna was “delving down” on ways to partner “across the ecosystem to make sure consumers are educated on the need for the vaccine.”
What Garay hinted at during the call, but didn’t disclose, was that Moderna already had a sprawling media operation in place aimed at identifying and responding to critics of vaccine policy and the drug industry. A series of internal company reports and communications reviewed by RealClearInvestigations show that Moderna has worked with former law enforcement and public health officials and a drug industry-funded non-governmental organization called The Public Good Projects (PGP) to confront the “root cause of vaccine hesitancy” by rapidly identifying and “shutting down misinformation.”
Part of this effort includes providing talking points to some 45,000 healthcare professionals “on how to respond when vaccine misinformation goes mainstream.” PGP and Moderna have created a new partnership, called the “Infodemic Training Program,” to prepare health care workers to respond to alleged vaccine-related misinformation.
The company has also used artificial intelligence to monitor millions of global online conversations to shape the contours of vaccine-related discussion. The internal files — shorthanded here as the Moderna Reports — show high-profile vaccine critics were closely monitored, particularly skeptics in independent media, including Michael Shellenberger, Russell Brand, and Alex Berenson. PGP, which was funded by a $1,275,000 donation from the Biotechnology and Innovation Organization, a lobby group representing Pfizer and Moderna, has identified alleged vaccine misinformation and helped facilitate the removal of content from Twitter, among other social media platforms, throughout 2021 and 2022.
Emails from that period show that PGP routinely sent Excel lists of accounts to amplify on Twitter and others to de-platform, including populist voices such as ZeroHedge.
The messages also suggested emerging narratives to remove from the platform. “People opposed to vaccines are capitalizing on the NYT [New York Times] article about the CDC withholding vaccine information. The articles do not contain misinformation themselves but are using the news to further prove the CDC is untrustworthy,” wrote Savannah Knell, PGP’s senior director of partnerships, in an email to a Twitter lobbyist in September 2022. In another email the following month, Kaitlyn Krizanic, PGP’s senior program manager, told Twitter to be on the lookout for “reports that Sweden is no longer recommending the vaccine for children.” In some cases, conservative accounts expressing outrage at restrictive pandemic policies, such as vaccination passports, were deemed by PGP as “misinformation” that warranted removal.
The Moderna Reports consistently show the company raising red flags about those reporting documented side effects of the vaccine the biotech company was selling. Such concerns, which may be typical of corporate public relations efforts that want their product shown in the best light, take on a darker cast when it involves medicine injected into people’s bodies.
Like the Twitter Files, the Moderna Reports highlight the push by powerful entities – especially government, Big Tech, and Big Pharma – to identify and brand dissenting opinions about establishment narratives as risky forms of speech. The growing network these efforts rely on shows the growth of what has been called the censorship industrial complex. Moderna’s faltering financials also suggest, at least for now, the limits of that project.
Public Good Projects and Moderna did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
In an internal email sent last July, Moderna notified its team of its latest efforts to shape the vaccine debate. “We have partnered with PGP (The Public Good Projects) and Moderna’s Global Intelligence, Corporate Security, Medical Affairs, Corporate Communications, Clinical Safety and Pharmacovigilance teams to provide media monitoring for misinformation at scale,” Marcy Rudowitz, the company’s customer program lead, wrote. “If and when a response is needed, our team will notify the appropriate stakeholders with recommendations,” she added.
The extent to which the company may intervene to shape content decisions is not clear. PGP continues to boast close relations with establishment institutions, including major medical associations.
The rise of censorship is inextricably connected to the pandemic, which emerged in the U.S. in early 2020. As federal, state, and local governments imposed unprecedented regulations on Americans in the name of public health, efforts arose to discredit counter-narratives that could be spread easily on social media. Early in the pandemic, criticism of policies such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates came almost entirely from independent media, which faced shadowbans and outright censorship on various platforms.
When they introduced their vaccines in 2021, manufacturers such as Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson also had a powerful financial interest in bolstering such censorship.
Moderna, perhaps more than other drug firms, is overwhelmingly reliant on the continued success of its vaccine. The company announced a price hike of up to $130 a dose this month, far higher than the $15-26 for American federal contracts, according to the Wall Street Journal. “We’re expecting a 90% reduction in demand,” Modena CEO Stéphane Bancel said, when he was asked to defend the decision. “As you can see, we’re losing economies of scale.”
Far from acting as a neutral arbiter, the Moderna Reports show that the company blurred the lines between public relations and public health. In many cases, Moderna’s intelligence and communications team targeted accurate information that had “the potential to fuel vaccine hesitancy” as menacing forms of misinformation in its reports. Given the size and scope and the censorship industrial complex, it can be difficult to draw a clear straight line between Moderna’s surveillance and actions taken against specific articles, posts, and writers. Instead, as Garay suggested, the company is one stream in an evolving ecosystem aimed at undermining dissent.
Independent journalist Alex Berenson is a repeated subject of the company’s surveillance efforts. A former reporter for the New York Times, Berenson quickly emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of vaccine-related policies. He was among the earliest to cast doubt on the Biden administration’s false claim that the vaccinated people could not transmit the COVID-19 virus to others. After government pressure on Twitter, Berenson was banned from the platform in 2021, only to return after successfully litigating against the company.
He appears to still be in the crosshairs. In September 2023, Moderna flagged a tweet from Berenson that highlighted the CDC’s data showing that among 1 million mRNA-vaccinated teenagers, there were from zero to a single COVID death and up to 200,000 side effects.
The company cited Berenson’s tweet under a report headline “Attacks on pediatric COVID-19 vaccines escalate” and claimed he had “cherry-picked data.” However, the company did not directly rebut any of Berenson’s claims in its report. Rather, Moderna noted the “high-risk” danger of Berenson’s viral tweet related to the potential for low child COVID-19 vaccination rates. “Fears about side effects and long-term dangers are major reasons parents report not vaccinating their children,” the report stated. It further concluded that “resistance to COVID-19 vaccines for children can be a gateway to broader anti-vaccine beliefs.”
Other Moderna reports flag Berenson’s tweets for “misinformation about mRNA safety” and claim that he is a “conspiracy theorist” for suggesting that health authorities have not properly taken into account the documented risks of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) for young men receiving the vaccine. Such questions have been posed by an increasing number of health professionals, but the misinformation reports dismiss any Berenson criticism as inherently false.
“It’s nice to know Moderna is watching me,” said Berenson, when asked about his response to the revelations. “I’m watching them too. mRNA shots carry unacceptably high heart risks for teenagers and young adults. Nearly the entire rest of the world accepts this reality and now discourages or bans people under 50 from taking mRNA Covid boosters. It is unconscionable that Moderna and Pfizer continue to market them to non-elderly adults.”
“They can call me whatever they like,” he noted, “but they can’t stop my reporting.”
Russell Brand, the British commentator and comedian, is also a repeated name in the Moderna misinformation files. The left-leaning populist routinely pillories the pharmaceutical industry for exploiting the pandemic to generate unprecedented profits.
Moderna has closely monitored Brand’s criticism of the drug industry.
In various “low-risk” reports produced in August 2023, Moderna flagged videos produced by Brand twice. In one, Moderna noted that Brand had broadcast a monologue about Jonathan Van-Tam, a former senior health official who helped formulate COVID-19 policies in Britain. Van-Tam had just taken a position with Moderna, a move that raised eyebrows with many in the press. In the video, Brand noted that the company had just “made a fortune during the pandemic selling vaccines to the government,” and that the “government worker that bought all those vaccines” was now moving through the revolving door.
In another report, Moderna alleged that Brand “claimed that COVID-19 vaccine mandates were based on a lie in a recent podcast episode.” The video was broadly accurate. The monologue highlights CDC documents that had come to light showing that officials were aware that the virus would “break through” and still infect vaccinated patients. In an ironic twist, Brand finished the segment with a discussion of efforts to censor debate around the vaccine.
Moderna noted they were not yet taking action on this broadcast, but “we are monitoring with our partner, the Public Good Projects.”
The following month, several media outlets reported that several women who insisted on anonymity were claiming that Brand had abused them nearly twenty years ago. The ensuing media firestorm, which led to YouTube demonetizing his account, became fodder for other Moderna misinformation reports. The company warned that the cancellation of Brand was sparking a backlash among social media users, who believed that he may be targeted by government and corporate censors for his outspoken opposition to pandemic narratives.
In a Moderna high-risk report, the company noted that speculation was swirling that “allegations are part of a conspiracy to silence the comedian, who has been a vocal opponent of COVID-19 vaccines.” The report linked an X video of Brand sharply criticizing Moderna and Pfizer for generating “$1,000 of profit every second” in 2021. The specific claim of profiteering was a mainstream claim, a statistic that was produced by Oxfam.
Nowhere in its reports on Brand did Moderna highlight any incorrect information. But the reports noted that they monitored Brand because he “has a large platform with over 6.6 million YouTube subscribers and over 21 million followers across multiple social media platforms.” Moreover, his “videos are widely circulated in anti-vaccine spaces where he is viewed as a truth-teller and threat to authority,” and that Brand maintained support from Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk.
The Moderna misinformation reporting system reveals that the pharmaceutical firm maintained an interest in pandemic-related issues that go beyond vaccine policy, overlapping with general issues surrounding the unexplained questions that still swirl around the source of the pandemic.
The company, for instance, flagged discussions around news last year of a congressional whistleblower who came forward with allegations that the CIA suppressed an assessment from analysts that COVID-19 originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The story has garnered widespread coverage in NBC, Science, and ABC News, among other outlets.
But Moderna’s misinformation alerts flagged Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and journalist Michael Shellenberger for distributing information about the CIA allegation. Shellenberger – with whom this reporter has worked on the Twitter Files – had exclusively reported earlier last year that U.S. government sources believed that the “patient zeros” of COVID-19 were a group of Chinese scientists at the Wuhan lab – a major revelation later confirmed by the Wall Street Journal.
Despite his work on the issue, Moderna dismisses Shellenberger in its reports as among its known “misinformation authors.”
“Moderna has spent years spreading disinformation about their vaccines and so it makes sense that they would smear the scientists and journalists who expose them as conspiracy theorists and sources of misinformation,” Shellenberger told RCI.
“The question is why is Moderna spreading disinformation on the high probability that Covid escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab?” he added. “A company that makes its money selling a coronavirus vaccine shouldn’t care where Covid came from.”
Moderna closely monitored other independent voices. The company flagged left-wing comedian Jimmy Dore for simply tweeting at a New York Times call for triple-vaccination with the two-word response, “Hard pass,” as an example of misinformation. The company also warned about the appearance of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the Joe Rogan podcast as well as Lex Fridman, a popular independent podcaster.
Other reports flag skeptics of vaccine efficiency and potential side effects. In September, Moderna’s system cited Megyn Kelly, the podcaster and former Fox News host, for a viral clip in which she said she regrets the COVID-19 booster after she developed an autoimmune condition that she believes was caused by the shot.
Moderna warned that such comments could “discourage people who are on the fence about getting vaccinated.” In its alert about Kelly, the company noted that her comments added to growing concern around autoimmune disorders and COVID-19 vaccinations. The Moderna misinformation email proceeded to offer data that appeared to reaffirm, rather than debunk, Kelly’s assertions. The alert concluded with a message about an NIH report that highlights a link between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and inflammatory and autoimmune skin diseases. Moderna did not dispute the findings of the NIH study, but noted that it “is in rotation in anti-vaccine spaces online.”
The merging of public health and corporate influence peddling has concerned many academics. Jay Bhattacharya, a professor of health policy at Stanford University who says the government violated his free-speech rights by trying to silence his questioning of federal policies regarding COVID, told RCI: “We have a problem that social media companies and the government have allied with pharma to treat information flows around the COVID vaccine as a propaganda problem, rather than a medical issue that is best resolved by patients talking with their doctor about what’s best for them.”
Bhattacharya was one of the most prominent academics who was shadowbanned under the previous owners of Twitter because of his criticism of the lockdowns and masking policy. He is now one of the plaintiffs litigating against the U.S. government’s role in shaping content decisions on social media platforms in the Missouri v. Biden case, which is now before the Supreme Court.
Bhattacharya’s outspoken advocacy has attracted attention from Moderna as well. In October 2023, shortly after I spoke to him for an interview, Moderna flagged one of the Stanford professor’s tweets that shared a link to a new Food and Drug Administration preprint study that documented “elevated risk of seizures in toddlers and myocarditis in teenagers associated with covid mRNA vaccination.” Moderna did not directly dispute the study findings other than to note that its authors wrote that it “should be interpreted cautiously.”
In the attached report, Moderna added that it had highlighted the tweet and others like it because “concerns about safety and side effects are among the main reasons parents are hesitant about or oppose COVID-19 vaccines for their children.”
In other words, anything that might discourage children from vaccinations, despite any risks or lack of benefits, is dangerous information. That suggests a motive far from bringing truth to the vaccine debate, and far more about dominating it for financial gain.
Near the end of the Moderna call last September, as the biotech firm worked to highlight its stepped-up outreach to consumers, James Mock, the chief financial officer, spoke briefly to assure investors of the company’s ability to continue to make money.
“COVID is a very valuable product line of business and will continue to be,” said Mock, “and we’ll make it more profitable.”
The lefts lie about Roe V Wade.
In case you missed it, Roe V Wade is no longer the law of the land. When it was overturned the left claimed that millions of women who didn’t abort, would die. From what, who knows. That was never explained. But since then, what the Supreme Court did was a blessing to the folks who said let’s have a baby killing fest.
Most of the blue states had laws that had a 15-24 week period to where abortion was allowed. That now has changed. States are passing laws to where abortion is allowed up to birth. So again please explain to me how the removal of the law has changed things?
The man just can’t stop Lying. Rich do pay taxes. Joe again told the same lie that he told 30 times now. The Rich only pay 8.5% Federal Tax Rate. And he was given Pinocchio’s for the 30th time. A review.
“Look, folks, you know how many billionaires we have in America today? One thousand. You know what their average rate — tax rate — federal tax rate is? Federal tax rate is 8.5 percent. Raise your hand if you’d trade your tax rate for 8.5 percent. I’m serious. Think about this. There’d be $40 billion raised if they even pay 25 percent.”
But if you check Treasury Department calculations for what the richest Americans already pay in taxes, you would see that the richest 1 percent pay in excess of 20 percent in income taxes and more than 30 percent in all federal taxes. Even if you drill down to the top 400 wealthiest taxpayers — data that was publicly available on an annual basis until President Donald Trump killed the report — they paid an effective tax rate of 23.1 percent in 2014. These taxpayers — with $127 billion of income — that year paid $29.4 billion in income taxes, or more than 2 percent of all income taxes, the IRS said. That’s more than the bottom 70 percent of taxpayers combined.
WASHINGTON — Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) issued the following statement after day one of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s two-day, 14-hour transcribed interview:
“Dr. Fauci’s testimony today uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems. While leading the nation’s COVID-19 response and influencing public narratives, he simultaneously had no idea what was happening under his own jurisdiction at NIAID. Dr. Fauci signed off on all domestic and foreign research grants without reviewing the proposals and admitted that he was unaware if NIAID conducted oversight of the laboratories they fund. Clearly, the American people and the United States government are operating with completely different expectations about the responsibilities of our public health leaders and the accountability of our public health agencies.
It is also concerning that the face of our nation’s response to the world’s worst public health crisis ‘does not recall’ key details about COVID-19 origins and pandemic-era policies. Nearly 1.2 million Americans lost their lives to a potentially preventable pandemic. I look forward to asking Dr. Fauci further questions about mandates, his role in prompting the ‘Proximal Origin’ publication, and his policy positions related to masks and lockdowns. Tomorrow’s testimony will continue the Select Subcommittee’s effort to deliver the answers Americans demand and deserve.”
DR. FAUCI DAY 1 TAKEAWAYS
The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci for seven hours yesterday (Jan 8, 2024) about his role during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Fauci’s testimony uncovered drastic and systemic failures in America’s public health systems.
Key highlights by the Select Subcommittee from Dr. Fauci’s testimony:
The left continues to spread misinformation. ‘Squad’ member slammed for pushing misinformation: Instinct was to ‘try to blame the Israelis’ Rep. Ilhan Omar retweeted a photo of dead children in Syria, not Gaza.
FOX News is reporting that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar retweeted a photo claiming that these were dead children that the IDF killed in the war against Hamas. But it actually was a picture from ten years ago taken in Syria. And it was a a 2013 sarin gas attack in Ghouta, Syria, and not from the Israel-Hamas war.
Even AOC knew it was false and posted this.
Fellow ‘Squad’ member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., warned about the “incredibly high” amount of misinformation on social media about the ongoing war and urged her followers to “pause” and “check” for verification.
“If you see a claim, photo, or video that triggers a strong emotional reaction, take a moment to pause and check for veracity/confirmation from multiple sources,” she wrote on X.
Omar has since un-retweeted the photo after criticism.
Bitch slapping of the FBI director. Here’s a collection of Wray giving his spin and some outright lies.
 Originally Published on DailyClout.io “Dr. Walensky seemed less cool in this appearance for Congress. This is the least composed and the most nervous, I feel, like I’ve seen this woman who’s usually kind of cool as a cucumber,” noted conservative podcaster Emerald Robinson Thursday. She also “perjured herself twice,” expressed special guest and DailyClout CEO Dr. Naomi Wolf.
The soon-to-be former CDC Director (June 30), Rochelle Walensky, testified before Congress for two hours on Tuesday. Here are some of the “key takeaways,” as provided by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability:
One moment that garnered a lot of attention was Dr. Walensky’s exchange with Rep. James Comer (R-KY). Rep. Comer asked Dr. Walensky several times about the CDC’s role in pressuring social media companies like Facebook, now Meta, to censor opinions that ran contrary to the CDC’s, to which Dr. Walensky continually answered, “That topic is one that is under litigation in the courts, so I will not be speaking to that.” Dr. Naomi Wolf responded to such statements. “Dr. Walensky, when she said, I can’t speak to that because it’s under litigation, two Attorneys General, one from Missouri, and one from Louisiana, have sued and disclosed that, in fact, she the CDC, she right there, that woman was colluding with Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, Twitter, DHS, and the White House to censor information, including from yours truly right here in June of 2021, to warn women that there were menstrual problems subsequent to this injection, which, of course, has resulted two years later in fertility problems.”
“She did that, and he [Mark Zuckerberg] did that,” Dr. Wolf continued. “And now that the truth is coming out because of people like you and me and the hard work that we’re doing, and our 3500 volunteers. Now they’re like, ‘Oh, really bad that the government pushed us to censor things that might have been true.’ Well, yes. Mark Zuckerberg. They were true. And he’s injured so many women and babies and killed babies as a result of censoring that. And when Dr. Walensky said it’s under litigation, we’re suing her. George Smith, our lawyer in Ohio, sued her, and many other people are suing her for having lied and injured Americans as a result.” Dr. Walensky was also “jumpy,” observed Dr. Wolf. “My husband’s a body language expert, and so it’s interesting watching this with him.” The man who appeared to be Dr. Walensky’s lawyer in the background often covered his mouth when Dr. Walensky had “blown it.” “And she blew it a couple of times,” remarked Dr. Wolf, but she also “lied twice.” Here are those two lies, as outlined by Dr. Naomi Wolf.Lie One: when Dr. Walensky stated that she didn’t know the COVID shots didn’t stop transmission when she touted “95% effective” to the American people. “Well, our experts, our report [73] has shown that she knew perfectly well she was lying at the time she said that to Americans — that our experts found that Pfizer knew in November of 2020, which means she knew because she had the same documents, that the vaccines did not work to stop COVID,” stated Dr. Wolf. “And in fact, Pfizer got rid of [at least] 200 vaccinated COVID-sick people in their trials in order falsely to make the claim that they were 95% effective. But the fact that they got rid of those 200-[plus] sick people is right there in the documents that Rochelle Walensky was given.”
Dr. Chris Flowers, MD, attests that if those 200-plus people who were excluded from Pfizer’s clinical trials with COVID-like symptoms had been included, it would have shown that Pfizer’s COVID-19 shots actually had “negative efficacy.” Dr. Chris Flowers breaks down the data in this interview.
Lie Two: when Dr. Walensky stated you couldn’t transmit COVID while vaccinated. “This was the basis for the illegal mandates,” lamented Dr. Wolf. “Well, she knew perfectly well at the time she said it that that was a lie. And in fact, the Pfizer Documents show, as of November 2020, that the vaccines didn’t work to stop transmission — that there was vaccine failure and failure of efficacy. So she categorically lied to Congress twice,” Dr. Wolf asserted. In fact, Dutch MEP Rob Roos got a Pfizer spokesperson (J. Small) to admit that the pharmaceutical giant never confirmed its COVID shots stopped transmission because it had to “move at the speed of science.”  More Lies: Dr. Walensky’s verbal exchange with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA).Dr. Wolf expressed she was “frustrated watching this hearing because all of the evidence that these interrogators on the right needed is in our Pfizer Documents book. For the most part, they didn’t ask the right questions or the right follow-up questions, except for Marjorie Taylor Greene.” Here’s the summarized transcript of that interaction:  MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: “I’d also like to talk to you on behalf of all the pregnant women, not people, as you call them. This has also been ignored, the amount of miscarriages and stillbirths that increased drastically due to your advice to get vaccinated. Pregnant women, again, not people. But my question for you today, Dr. Walensky, is now that you’re going to be leaving the CDC pretty soon, what job are you going to take? Are you going to be on the board of either Pfizer or Moderna? Because you’ve done one hell of a job at making sure that they’ve made a lot of money. And I yield back.” ROCHELLE WALENSKY: “Thank you for that question. Maybe first, I will comment that CDC is not responsible for the purchase of vaccines. So I can’t speak to all of the economics that you spoke to. I do want to talk [for] a minute about the Vaccine Adverse Reporting — that Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. So that system is intended for any person who has gotten a vaccine if they have an untoward event after that vaccine, whether or not it is related to the vaccine they report. It is intended to have an overreporting. All of the vaccines — not all — most of the vaccines that were being given. Remember, we gave 676 million doses of the vaccine. Any adverse event, if you got hit by a truck after you got your vaccine, that was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. We at CDC have a responsibility to comb through every single one of them to review the medical charts and to see if they are related. We review all of the things that come into the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. I’d be happy to have our staff educate your staff on the —” MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: “I don’t want my staff educated. You should educate the American people about what you’ve done [with] 1.5 million reports because they feel like you’ve done nothing and continue to say ‘safe and effective.’” ROCHELLE WALENSKY: “Maybe I will just close my saying I don’t have plans after I step down.” “So many lies. Lies upon lies,” responded Dr. Naomi Wolf.
“She’s using her education, her access, her resources to hurt and injure and kill people and lie to the American people before Congress.” “VAERS is actually not designed to overreport,” Dr. Wolf countered. “According to Harvard University, in her hometown of Boston, it underreports by a factor of 1% to 10%. And even the most established scientists and healthcare institutions accept that VAERS underreports.” “Secondly, if they’re tasked with looking into every single one of those reports to VAERS, why on earth did they not look at that gigantic spike in miscarriages? Dr. Wolf asked. “They didn’t do that,” she lamented. “So even if she claims, oh, all these [reports] — it wasn’t the vaccine. She doesn’t know it wasn’t a vaccine because they did not look. There are no studies that the CDC ran to look at why the spiking of reports of miscarriage and spontaneous abortion coinciding with the rollout of vaccine were so massive.” “Third,” Dr. Wolf continued. “What she’s lying about is that she knows exactly what caused those spontaneous abortions and miscarriages because she has the same paperwork from Pfizer that we have. And there’s a section in the Pfizer documents where there’s an 80 percent miscarriage rate after women got vaccinated. And there’s another section where — and this is in report 69 — where Pfizer shows that two of these tiny babies in utero who were delivered early, meaning spontaneously aborted after their moms got vaccinated and died.”
“The reason for that was, in Pfizer’s words, ‘transplacental’ exposure to the vaccine,” Dr. Wolf attested.
“Transplacental exposure to the vaccine,” she repeated. “She [Dr. Walensky] had these documents. She knew what they said. And this was turned in a report to the White House, the CDC, and the FDA on April 20, 2021. On April 23, 2021, that woman got up in front of the White House at a press conference and said to the pregnant women of America that she recommended that they get vaccinated. She said the vaccine was safe and effective for pregnancy, and she recommended that pregnant women get vaccinated to protect their babies. And she said [that] there’s never a bad time to get vaccinated before your pregnancy, during your pregnancy, or after you’re pregnant. And she knew this report from Pfizer that showed that babies were dying in utero due to transplacental exposure, Pfizer’s words. And that they were being poisoned by the mRNA and spike protein in their mother’s breast milk.” “That woman murdered babies, and she knew it,” asserted Dr. Wolf. “And five days after we posted [Pfizer] Report 69, she announced her resignation. So that’s what Congress should be asking her about. Did she know that? And if so, why did she tell pregnant women of America to take something that would kill their babies and poison them if they breastfed them?” That famous Pfizer Report 69, which was published five days before Dr. Walensky’s resignation announcement, is available for free, along with all the other Pfizer Documents Reports on dailyclout.io.
Pfizer Report 73, which details how Pfizer knew by November 2020 that its mRNA COVID shot was neither safe nor effective, is available here. That particular report is a highly-technical read, but one of the authors, Dr. Chris Flowers, MD, summarizes the main points in this interview:  And if you’d like to support the work of Dr. Naomi Wolf, Amy Kelly, and the 3500 DailyClout/War Room volunteers, please order a copy of the Pfizer Documents Book for yourself, a family member, a friend, your doctor, or your local representative. The greatest crime in human history is all thoroughly documented here:
|
