The CDC’s Approach to COVID Makes Perfect Sense
There’s nothing inconsistent about the CDC’s inconsistencies
Can you believe this knucklehead, Madhava Setty, M.D.? So what that he’s an Ivy League educated medical doctor, trained at the University of Pennsylvania, no less?
Or that he’s a highly skilled anesthesiologist who helps keep patients undergoing surgery safe and pain-free?
Or, for that matter, that he also spent six years working in the aerospace and defense industry and has a degree from MIT, literally one of the best universities in the world?
We definitely shouldn’t listen to him.
(Or MIT’s brilliant and big-hearted Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., or MIT’s genius Steven Kirsch, for that matter.)
Dr. Setty—who should be immediately canceled and censored, problem solved!—recently wrote an article for The Defender about the double standards our illustrious and industrious public health officials have been using to create the illusion that what they’ve been telling us about COVID is correct.
Double standards? At the CDC?
No one in their right mind could EVER believe that the CDC has anything but our best interests at heart.
I mean, c’mon, it’s not like over a dozen of the CDC’s own senior scientists have ever accused the taxpayer-funded organization of cozying up so affectionately to corporate America that they compromised their ethical integrity!
Or that the CDC has explicit conflicts of interests—funded by corporate interests to promote vaccines while at the same time being charged with overseeing vaccine safety!
I mean, oh my god, anyone who believes that the fact that the following companies have donated UNDISCLOSED amounts of money to the CDC (all the public is “allowed” to know is that they’ve given above the $50,000 mark) might actually influence anything the CDC says or does must have parked her brain at the curb before driving the car.
Indeed, CDC’s funders, besides you and me, include:
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Merck & Co., Inc.
Sabin Vaccine Institute
I love all these beautiful, wonderful altruistic institutions that care nothing about money but only about health. Don’t you?
And it’s also of zero consequence that the CDC received $8.75 billion to prepare for, promote, and administer COVID vaccines! And $5.140 billion to promote vaccines for children (compared to just $9 million to help women breastfeed their babies.)
The CDC “saves lives.”
The CDC brags on its website that its work “saves lives.” Except America’s life expectancy seems to be going down and our health outcomes worsening in direct proportion to how much money is being funneled to
fund big pharma save lives.
I wouldn’t pay any attention to Dr. Setty’s article. I’ll say it louder for the people in the back: There’s nothing inconsistent about the CDC’s inconsistencies.
If you repeat these already-true-and-indisputable facts often enough they will actually be true and indisputable. We know this. From Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
Absolutely true and indisputable facts to repeat at least 23 times a day, preferably in front of a mirror:
Aluminum is not a neurotoxin! Nope!
Autism is genetic! Yep!
Tylenol does not damage the immune system, brain, lungs, or liver! Nope!
Vaccines are safe and effective! Yep!
And don’t forget, the COVID vaccine, like all vaccines, is safe during pregnancy! Just like diethylstilbestrol!
Among Dr. Setty’s observations that you should not trouble your pretty little head over:
1. Our government assumes that anyone who died with COVID (whether the viral infection was confirmed or just presumed) died BECAUSE OF COVID. But anyone—anyone—who died following the COVID vaccine (whether within hours; a day after; four days later; five days later; or a week or two) did not, we repeat, DID NOT, die from the vaccine.
Only 9 people have died from the COVID vaccine, after all. Those 26,693 deaths reported to the CDC though April 1?
Excuse me while I stick my fingers in my ears. I suggest you do this too. La, la, la, la, la, la, la.
2. VAERS data is used by the CDC to investigate safety signals. Myocarditis, anyone? Pericarditis? At the same time, the VAERS DEATH data is dismissed as “unreliable” by the CDC. These death statistics are absolutely not a huge neon red safety signal flashing before the eyes of every person on the planet who has working eyeballs.
3. Relative risk is the name of the CDC game when it comes to vaccine efficacy (in order to make the vaccines look waaaaay more efficacious than they actually are). But only absolute risk matters when it comes to the over one million two hundred thousand adverse events following COVID vaccination (in order to make the vaccines look waaaaay less dangerous than they actually are.)
Don’t read Dr. Setty’s article. Don’t click on any of his links or check his math either.
Just take a deep breath and run—I mean, SPRINT—to get your safe, efficacious, and oh-so-absolutely-necessary COVID vaccine.
And when are we going to STOP calling these EXPERIMENTAL GENE THERAPY INJECTIONS "vaccines"???
"Calling Covid shots “vaccines” is a hypnotic induction, a PsyOps. It conjures up a lifetime of deep mental associations, emotions, tightly and widely held belief systems about their claimed role in saving humanity from diseases. This works.
“Vaccine” is deceptive, seductive, pervasive and persuasive. It brings tons of baggage and familiarity to easily incite hostility towards “anti-vaxxers” and makes the “vaccine hesitant” seem pathetic and stupid."
~ Diane Perlman
Jennifer, I am glad to see your article here! I read Dr. Setty's article and was scratching my head - it made no sense. I tried to make a comment on CHD and for some reason no matter what I did it wouldn't post. I read his book a couple years ago which I enjoyed, but since then he has been promoted as an expert on many things (through Collective Evolution, etc) yet at times it sounded as if he had just skimmed some articles prior to doing an interview, and had no real in depth understanding of what he was commenting on. Sadly I've become rather discerning, or shall I say suspicious, these days on hearing "experts" - my heart sank a bit as I read his article, wondering if that organization is infiltrated or turning more towards the common narrative. While I won't jump to conclusions, my ears and eyes are open...
Thank you for your honesty and candor!