posted ago by PolishBaldEagle ago by PolishBaldEagle +240 / -0

Hello frens, I need data on when FDA contradicted itself, was factually and provably wrong, or flip flopped on medical information. Specifically I need examples. My medical provider asked me to pull up this specific data, not actually medical data, on this to provide in a medical exemption

Comments (37)
sorted by:
PolishBaldEagle [S] 30 points ago +30 / -0 stickied

Why did I sticky this? Because, historically, a post which is time sensitive, can’t afford to be lost, and is asking for community help, I have stickied. Had this not been my own post, I would’ve sticked as well.

PolishBaldEagle [S] 17 points ago +17 / -0

More details… my employer is asking my medical doctor some illegal and insulting questions based on my medical exemption.

FreedomLover21 12 points ago +12 / -0

The agency’s initially strict regulations for diagnostic test developers were removed after complaints. Its emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine was followed by a sharp warning about deadly side effects. It issued a pullback after letting faulty antibody tests flood the market. In April it changed its guidance to allow the use of Chinese-made KN95 masks in healthcare settings, only to reverse course in May and ban many of them. There were even issues with the FDA-authorized test the White House used to screen visitors.“

Snippet from this article: https://wtop.com/government/2020/05/inside-the-fdas-reversals-and-walk-backs-as-it-grapples-with-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

Three or four reversals in that paragraph alone.

FreedomLover21 2 points ago +2 / -0

What about using the Disabilities Act? Isn’t a medical exemption somewhat a disability? Just brainstorming.

PolishBaldEagle [S] 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes it is. But you know, these tyrannical companies are trying to see how far they can push us. I WILL NOT STAND DOWN!!

FreedomLover21 1 point ago +1 / -0

Amen, fren!

TheLetterK 16 points ago +16 / -0

Here is where the CDC states "DO NOT use facemasks."

http://archive.today/RKdWc https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/84900

"Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids. There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza." https://archive.is/y22jF

"More research on cloth masks is needed to inform their use as an alternative to surgical masks/respirators in the event of shortage or high-demand situations. To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks." http://archive.today/rIZN6

"The general public should be educated about mask use because cloth masks may give users a false sense of protection because of their limited protection against acquiring infection. Correctly putting on and taking off cloth masks improves protection. Taking a mask off is a high-risk process because pathogens may be present on the outer surface of the mask and may result in self-contamination during removal." http://archive.today/lbCgF

CDC Study Finds Overwhelming Majority Of People Getting Coronavirus Wore Masks "In the 14 days before illness onset, 71% of case-patients and 74% of control-participants reported always using cloth face coverings or other mask types when in public." http://archive.today/RDVnV

You should be using this resource.


Scorpion76 10 points ago +10 / -0

I've copied many links, I found this as it mentions the CDC not actually having the isolate for the (now) old Delta variant:

“How is our State Health authority reporting on a DELTA VARIANT when there are NO tests for the DELTA VARIANT?  Without any facts, wouldn’t you think they are perpetrating fraud?  What if they continued to make up numbers for whatever reason, what if they personally benefit from another lockdown?  Please get them to give you EVIDENCE that independent doctors can see otherwise aren’t they committing a crime?”

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.

And this: https://freedomfirstnetwork.com/2021/07/cdc-fda-faked-covid-testing-protocol-by-using-human-cells-mixed-with-common-cold-virus-fragments


CDC admitting RT - PCR tests are useless from the start. https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/09/01/cdc-fda-smoking-gun-of-smoking-guns/

Hope some of this helps fren.

VaccinesCauseSIDS 8 points ago +8 / -0

The FDA approved Vioxx, and then Vioxx killed 50,000 people before it was finally pulled off the market.

Meanwhile, Merck kept a “hit list” of doctors who it wanted silenced, because they were talking too much about Vioxx problems


Phishhed44 2 points ago +2 / -0

Whoa 😮

TheShitWhisperer 5 points ago +5 / -0

Its not the FDA or the CDC but there is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3vtit8XXDw

Also someone posted their exemption letter last night, see https://greatawakening.win/p/12kFZ7m33S/pure-saint-anon-captured-what-is/c/

I think you will find your information in there, I haven't actually read it all or checked it all, I noticed him talking about metal and magnetism which I personally would throw in the toilet before trying to use it. But I think he took the kitchen sink approach.

PolishBaldEagle [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not so much the first letter, but rather the follow up questions from the employer

deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
PolishBaldEagle [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Need the other list fren

deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
TheBestTimeline 4 points ago +4 / -0

Don't forget to mention the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, CDC at its classiest.


PolishBaldEagle [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank you, I will add that

WhoBuiltTheCagesJOOO 3 points ago +3 / -0

PCR testing & Masks come to mind first. PCR is easy to find as they recently just made an announcement to stop using them after Dec 31 as they can’t tell the difference between any illness above 45 cycles. You can refer to creators TedbTalk where he lays out that you can make it find any illness if not done properly.

Masks will have to look but I have an amazing resource, archived footage and articles going back over a decade thats searchable by word. https://truthcomestolight.com/james-corbetts-solutions-watch-research-resources-you-should-know-about/

If I think of anything else, I’ll comment below this or edit.

VaccinesCauseSIDS 2 points ago +2 / -0

Opt in to quarantine here


To read more here


TLDR: in 2004, the CDC did vaccine study, then omitted data that linked vaccines to autism. When the CDC whistleblower told the world in 2014, the CDC then claimed (without evidence) that the reason vaccines are linked to autism is because autism causes vaccines (sic)

(honk honk clown world)

bekkiluvsit 2 points ago +2 / -0

Absolute proof of CDC lying, destroying evidence, pre-Coof documetary proving CDC/Big Pharma/FDA corruption. Vaxxed the movie, parts 1 and 2 are DEVASTATING!


Housewife 2 points ago +2 / -0

The lies the CDC tell are going to be very difficult to unwind. I also have a very limited scope—I’ve researched and read most about SV40/polio and other childhood vaccines so that’s the perspective I can give.

First let’s take vaccine problems they admit to: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history.html

In the SV40 section they claim SV40 is not linked to cancer, and they link several studies in an attempt to back that up. So they are claiming the studies show this—but not whether the studies were properly conducted, are an accurate sample size, whether they have conflicts of interest etc. that’s where the lie is hidden. They just trusted the science man! How could they know?

The first link goes off the website (maybe all of them do?) and it is titled “Vaccine Safety and your Child: Separating Fact from Fiction”. This is not a cdc resource and is not a government resource. They give a warning that they cannot attest to the accuracy of the information of those websites. So they link you to a website they claim they can’t vouch for.

Click they link, the exit disclaimer will pop up. You’d think the CDC would have their own fact vs fiction info to link to.

The second link is difficult to understand. It’s about the review committee that decided sv40 doesn’t cause cancer. They reviewed mainly published studies and claim they weighted these heavily over unpublished. Despite the fact that funding and publishing was heavily influenced by the government and the NIH, and people who were studying SV40 for the link to cancer had their labs taken away and all funding cut. Like Bernice Eddy. So there is a bias here.

Another this is they assume SV40 is not contagious and will not spread. SV40 has been found in sperm. So when they say that people born after 1964 were not exposed to SV40, they don’t know that. They compare those rates of cancer to the babies and children exposed before 64. Better would have been to compare the cancer rates before the polio vaccine was even introduced. They set up flawed studies and flawed biased committees.

Some of the scientists that were published doing research on SV40 finding no link were sitting on the committee to determine whether they did or not. Biased.

Some scientists used PCR testing as well to isolate SV40 in tumors of humans. Many labs across multiple countries isolated SV40 from human tumors, but the committee blamed “lab contamination” for the “false positives” and backed a published peer reviewed study that found no correlation which was conducted by a scientist on the committee. This is explained in further detail in the book The Virus and the Vaccine.

Take the first “additional resources” link for adventitious agents in viral vaccines. This paper claims Bernice Eddy discovered a mouse virus that caused polyomas and theorized that the monkey kidneys used in polio vaccines could have a similar virus. This is NOT true. Bernice Eddy used SV40 to produce tumors in hamsters. She also worked with another scientist on a different virus that caused cancer in all animals they tested.

So this study got its facts wrong.

You can go on and find flaws. One link was a meta study which concluded that more information was needed but the present data showed no correlation.

One showed that SV40 was not present in 130 different mesothelioma tumor samples: which doesn’t meant that it does not cause cancer. Only that they did not find SV40 there.

So they say something, appeal to some other source, claim they can’t back the accuracy of that other source. Are they lying? Can you prove they did it on purpose?

Semmelweis 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ask them if they have the Comirnaty branded vials. I'm tempted to throw my gauntlet down and say "Show me Comirnaty, and I'll take your jab".

megalithicallstar 2 points ago +2 / -0

still wouldn't trust em. They'd say, "sure...give us a sec....10 minutes later and a P-Touch label on a vial that is incorrectly spelled "Komirnity

PolishBaldEagle [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Medical exemption forbids me. I take none

escapefromearth 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why do you need to provide them proof of the cdc's error for medical exemption. If you have a medical condition that exempts you then that's all that matters. Is this your doctor doing this to you? Can't you just go to a different one?

PolishBaldEagle [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly, it’s to toy with them and show their medical team that the CDC is not necessarily a gold standard.

It’s NOT my doctor doing this, it’s the company I work for doing this

Tree_Frog 2 points ago +2 / -0

Back in Haiti during 2010, UN Peacekeepers from Nepal, who were infected with cholera, build their encampment on a river which supplied a large number of Haitians with their water. The result was a multi-year epidemic, killing at least 10,000 Haitians. The CDC (under Obama and Hillary's State Dept.), tried to shift blame away from the real cause. When that failed and the true origins of the epidemic became known, CDC said they didn't come forth with the information sooner, due to "political considerations."

Horrible story!


Gitmo-or-Bust 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everytime it opens its filthy mouth.

Tree_Frog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Coincidence, but I just ran across this interview with Dr. Jason Alexander, who describes how CDC messed up testing in the early part of the scamdemic.


Neverstoptrumping 1 point ago +1 / -0


Kids should wear mask because of the delta varient and an hour later no evidence that kids can get it. 99.995% survival rate from the UK.

Small video link on the top CDC director says it live Edit:live on CNN

CokeOrPepe 1 point ago +1 / -0


Stormwatcher 1 point ago +1 / -0

The vaccine clinical trials started in summer of 2020, between all the trials they had somewhere between 60k and 100k people take vaccines and they are watching and testing them until the end of the trial (2023).

So this means their study population is 6 months ahead of the general population because vaccines for everyone were available in late Dec 2020.

So how did they miss the waning vaccine effectiveness around the 6 month mark? They should have seen it in their study population right in the beginning of 2021?? Did they miss it or just not tell us for 6 more months?

rednekhipychik 1 point ago +1 / -0

Check out Clay Clark on RedPill78.

DarQ2light 1 point ago +1 / -0

Don't know for sure if anyone else posted this but search for the term Ivermectin within this page at the CDC website and you will see that they are giving Ivermectin to refugees coming to the United States.


TheConservationist 1 point ago +1 / -0

What did the CDC originally say on asymptomatic spread and contaminated surfaces? What do they say now?

Look into these types of lies and self contradictions.

Might have to be a bit indirect, and use Fauci as the middle man.

Tree_Frog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Around 2011, the Cochrane Group, which does/did top notch meta-analyses of published medical studies, found that approximately 75% of people with hypertension did not need to follow a low-sodium diet. In fact, there was a sub-group of individuals who actually had more cardio-vascular issues when they followed sodium restriction guidelines.

The CDC was heavily invested in pushing a sodium restricted diet of 2300mg. per day for just about everyone and then quietly commissioned their own study. The findings of Cochrane were robust, but CDC never came out and reversed their message. They just slowly, over several years, stopped advertising the message.

I remember this distinctly, because my father loved his salt, and for the last 5 years of his life, followed a disgusting low sodium diet.