While generally true in many ways, this is specifically true of experts when it came to the COVID-19 “vaccinations,” and possibly true of the politicians involved as well. And yes, that would include President Trump. They were never wrong; they were always lying about its efficacy and risks.
These experts knew that the COVID shots weren’t vaccines. That’s why Fauci’s CDC changed the definition of “vaccine” so quickly. They also had to know – they did some testing, I assume – that the shots would harm, and even kill, some number of recipients. So, from the start, they weren’t mistaken; they lied. Again, they lied.
However, there are two separate considerations that must be applied to these experts’ mendacity. Firstly, they were dealing with a global panicdemic. They had to do something to combat it, even if it was more placebo than preventative, and they had to do it quickly. Secondly, we do need to address what “safe” means when one is dealing with any drug and the law of large numbers. Approximately 5.56 billion people were given the COVID shots and the number of deaths that we can point to being caused by this are in the 1000s or tens of 1000s worldwide. That tops out at 0.018% or, within the statistical margin for error.
So, their lies were understandable. But, they were still lies. The experts knew that the people’s definitions of an effective preventative and what was safe greatly varied from their own and chose to, as self-proclaimed experts almost always do, apply their own definitions to terms and simply proclaim to us what is and what will be, irrespective of anything else.
That about sums up the immunity provided by the various COVID-19 shots. It’s also why the CDC had to literally change their working definition of what a vaccine is. The ones getting immunity are the Pharma giants, who have been granted immunity from criminal prosecution and civil law suits for the damages and deaths their drugs cause.
As with all regulatory agencies when left unchecked, the FDA causes great harm through its hyper-authoritarian stances and rules as well as preventing harm through other rules. It’s why such agencies, operating outside of legislation but having the force of law, need to be regularly checked and forced to defend their actions by properly elected officials.
A perfect case in point is the FDA’s lethal regulations that categorically and absolutely forbid drug manufacturers engaging in any form of speech which can be construed as describing or promoting a use of their drug(s) for any use other than an the FDA approved on-label use, even if the information about this other use is entirely truthful, totally non-misleading, and could help physicians better treat their patients.
As a result of the FDA’s interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), manufacturers of pharmaceuticals may face severe penalties for disseminating truthful and non-misleading information about off-label uses before those uses are approved by the FDA. Indeed, some companies have paid settlements of hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in the face of threatened prosecution or trial in civil false claims cases. Governments and other private actors do not suffer the same burdens on their speech, even though the pharmaceutical manufacturer likely has the most complete, up-to-date, and useful information about the product. Moreover, even when it makes economic sense for a pharmaceutical manufacturer to seek FDA approval for a new use, the FDA can take many months or even years to approve such new uses. Patients — especially those with life-threatening conditions — cannot wait for the agency to act. Even with recent changes in the FDCA, if a new use concerns a rare disease — or the drug is off-patent — it may not be economical for the pharmaceutical manufacturer to seek approval of a new use.
And, sadly, this is lethal regulatory intransigence and tyranny. It has killed, is killing, and will continue to kill people. And all for no valid purposes other than keeping the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals on their proverbial knees before the Deep State and maintaining the perceived relevance – and budget appropriations – of the FDA.
With the FDA censoring what drug makers can publish – even when it’s true, simply presented, and efficacious – many doctors aren’t able to know that there are alternative, off-label, treatment options available for their patients. Similarly, this censorship makes it functionally and legally impossible for health insurance providers to cover the costs of those prescriptions. That has, can, and will kill people – all for the sake of the powermongers of the FDA.
This seems to be no longer be true, but in my day, if you wanted to try CHANTIX to aid you in stopping smoking, insurance wouldn’t cover it because it was an off-label use of the medication.
And, if we’re to even begin to believe the current, #Woke sorts, this is systemic racism since non-Whites, especially the Blacks, are less likely to be able to afford medications that aren’t covered by health insurance. Hence, they’re “disproportionately impacted” by the FDA’s lethal regulations upon free speech involving medicines’ uses.
Honestly, American or Democrat, everyone should be calling for a end to the FDA’s lethal regulation and censorship and calling upon the organization to account for and defend its regulations – which aren’t laws but carry the weight thereof without Legislative oversight – or be forced to abandon them.
It’s a sad fact that the evolution of medicine, especially in America, has been an evolution from providing medical services to becoming a massively profitable industry focused at least as much on making money as in treating or curing medical conditions. Indeed, it has evolved so far along that path that the medical industry – as opposed to, mind you, the majority of doctors – much prefers to treat diseases’ symptoms, rather than cure them.
Think about it for a moment. The pharmaceutical industry, which comprises only slightly more than 10% of the US medical industry’s wealth-based power, has repeatedly been able to dictate terms to the US government in order to protect themselves from income-damaging legislation.