621
Comments (63)
sorted by:
50
SneakyWino 50 points ago +50 / -0

Trying to avoid the noose. Too late!

13
ObjectiveReality 13 points ago +13 / -0

No, they just encountered their higher ups suddenly not caring about the data when it suddenly doesn't support their agenda, but haven't made the connection that it was NEVER about facts and data, and that the string pullers only bothered with fraudulent studies in the beginning to get the ball rolling.

3
Burmeister 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe some of them has finally figured out whats going on.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
32
Make_It_So 32 points ago +32 / -0

Massively too inconvenient for the MSM to mention.

18
p8riot 18 points ago +18 / -0

Too inconvenient for anyone here to read. They're still shilling for vaccination.

Although vaccines are less effective against asymptomatic disease or against transmission than against severe disease, even in populations with fairly high vaccination rates the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease

9
Phishhed44 9 points ago +9 / -0

Well THAT’s utter crap. No science, no repentance? No reduced sentences.

4
GimmeMemes 4 points ago +4 / -0

No red scarf instead of hemp.

2
KickingPugilist 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lancet is compromised like so many other "scientific" publications.

9
ObjectiveReality 9 points ago +9 / -0

It's their first red pill guys. There's no evidence boosters would make any difference, and it runs counter to the 'data' they all completely agree on. And yet their bosses are still pushing the boosters. "wha, that makes no sense though!?"

They don't get why facts and data "stopped" mattering all of a sudden so they wrote this article. They think data before was totally legit, but suddenly the data stopped mattering. What they don't get is that facts and data never mattered, and all the data they relied on previously was fraudulent. The elites just got tired of waiting for the fraudiulent bullshit studies to get massaged into higher up hands and said to hell with facts just do it.

But they aren't there yet. Baby's first red pill.

As for the cushing support of vaccines, you need to understand that's a requirment any time you're about to say something heretical in science. If you want your disagreement to be taken seriously, you always have to lead by praising everything else you're NOT about to criticize. "Listen everyone, we aren't crazy anti-covid vaxxers, we just think the boosters aren't supported by the data so we shouldn't push them for purely political reasons"

Welcome to the bastardization of science my frens

2
KickingPugilist 2 points ago +2 / -0

Boosters are more of the same poison. Literally.

4
CQVFEFE 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's all bullshit. It's the flu. Some redpilled doctors have said it isn't even SARS, it's misnamed since it isn't SEVERE, the first S.

7
Murphy71 7 points ago +7 / -0

So it’s ARS? Let me find a letter to stick on the end…kekkity kek… “I’ll have an E, please, Bob” (bonus points for knowing where that line came from…)

ARSE. Acute Respiratory Syndrome Exaggeration. You heard it here first. You’re welcome.

2
CQVFEFE 2 points ago +2 / -0

I FEEL welcome, Murph! That is a good one.

1
CheekyBastard 1 point ago +1 / -0

Posts like this are why I come here.

1
PhDinNY 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think most of the people in the medical field have their heads up their ARSEs :)

2
KickingPugilist 2 points ago +2 / -0

There it is. Thank you.

Vaxxed are more apt to spread de facto if they're symptoms are less severe.

1
Mountaing8 1 point ago +1 / -0

Wrongo. It's the vaccinated who are getting sick now. In fact, X22 says the boosters are being sidelined because they are causing too much morbidity and it's starting to look too obvious that they are the source of the problem.

1
TrustingGod 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interestingly, I've noticed several people i know on my project have been OOO for medical recently (more than usual). My 'mentor' also was sick with non-covid flu like symptoms recently (jabbed, so probably got a different test...). Last time we spoke a few months ago, his wife was sick, she is also jabbed. I have not been sick since I had a hangover ~Feb '20 when we stopped travelling.

15
bubble_bursts 15 points ago +15 / -0

From their Lancet article

there could be risks if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines,3 or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines4)

But there is plenty of word circus in there, about how the vaccine is not effective against mild infection, but great against serious infection, but also that its hard to interpret observational data.

The authors are twisting their own conscience to tell themselves that what they have done so far is great, but they dont want to kill more people with boosters. Or the threshold of murder at 2 doses is acceptable for them, but not what happens at booster.

4
Phishhed44 4 points ago +4 / -0

They’re twisting in the wind. Hang em HIGHER.

2
bubble_bursts 2 points ago +2 / -0

But regardless this is a great way to redpill normies who dont read anything other than "approved sources"

2
ObjectiveReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

I have written a more in depth analysis of the article, and I don't believe your characterization is valid. The two aknowledge the risks but prempt it by stating the positives far outweigh the risks.

Most of the pro-vaccine positions in the article exist so that their anti booster position can not be claimed to stem from being anti covid vax. That's very common when you're about to publish something heretical.

What this is really about is their first red pill - there's no evidence that boosts make any goddamn sense, but for political reasons the FDA is pushing it on them to agree with it. Why is that they wonder? Look it all these reasonings we will now give as to why this doesn't make sense!

But they are shaking their fists at the night. Facts and data don't matter, never did, and their next step should be to wonder if the 'positive' data they approved in the past was all fraudulent bullshit,a nd all that changed is that the powers that be are too impatient now to wait for the plausible deniability studies to enact the next stage.

3
bubble_bursts 3 points ago +3 / -0

Most of the pro-vaccine positions in the article exist so that their anti booster position can not be claimed to stem from being anti covid vax.

This is partly true, but here is my question - do you really think after they finally jolted awake that boosters are obviouslt bad (even to their threshold of whats bad) AND they resigned their positions as a result, that they have not already started to wonder about the first two doses?

I thin partly they are still trying to convince themselves that they didnt do anything wrong until now, its just the boosters that are bad.

This is a psychological subconscious defence mechanism. Accepting you did wrong is bad enough, but accepting you did wrong to the point of murdering people is almost impossible for most minds to accept. They will rationalise anyway they want. Infact, coming out against boosters is a big part of rationalising they are not evil. Internally the thinking goes "See, I am willing to sacrifice my career over boosters. No way I could have gone along with murder ever"

I know people like these. They may fight as much as they like about boosters, but they will defend the original vaccines with their lives. I hope I am wrong, but we will see.

2
ObjectiveReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh I'm sure they have. But as you note, if it was all a lie then they were unknowingly complicit is some soul crushing approvals and advisories. I don't think they are there yet. That's hard to accept. It's going to take a lot of research and investigation before they are ready to accept that possibility themselves, let alone try and publish literal heresy supporting it.

These higher up positions are political, even if you're an honest scientist filling them. You have to have political skills. So they know they lose nothing extolling the vaccine if it buys them the necessary capital to have additional boosters pushed back on.

The whole article is littered with reasonings that even the staunchest pro covid vax supporter can get behind. "The boosters are more effective used on the unvaccinated" comes to mind in particular.

Their goal is to convince the world not to pursue endless rounds of boosters, (and I think this articles makes the case for it, if it would ever be reported on) while pushing back on the vaccinations, even if they are already there, can come later.

3
PhDinNY 3 points ago +3 / -0

"The positives outweigh the risks" has been their go to excuse for promoting the shots for months now. Yet, the known treatments and preventative measures are still not discussed by these people, which tells you everything you need to know about them!

1
Tree_Frog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Absolutely correct! This is just a CYA. These are the people who have access to the best data available (Medicare/Medicaid data, EMRs, CVS records, etc.) on the adverse events caused by the jabs. And, they have to know that their cost/benefit analysis is seriously out of whack because of the diagnostic failings of PCR testing. I suspect they're opposing boosters, because the sudden deaths will really increase with the third dose (and they would be blamed).

Here's an FDA/CDC ppt, outlining their original data collection plans for the vaxx. Of course, the public has access only to VAERS:

https://files.catbox.moe/u3x13i.pdf

2
PhDinNY 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wonder if any of the medical clowns involved with all this knew about the benefits of vitamins D and C in boosting immune response, and just hid it because it would bite into their money/power grab, or if they were just ignorant of basic, non-pharma-based, health.

1
KickingPugilist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank you for doing what you do, apt username. I remember the lancet posting some of the same propaganda.

1
Murphy71 1 point ago +1 / -0

The mental gymnastics of sociopaths and psychopaths really are a sight to behold. Unfortunately, they disproportionately call way too many shots right now (pun intended) so one element of the GA for me has to include a country-by-country global commission that weeds them out of EVERY functional aspect of life on earth. Maybe we could devise a test but one that actually works 100% every time.

1
iamherefortheluls 1 point ago +1 / -0

he is saying the current vaccines are good enough.

also this

the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease

also his main worry seems to be that he wants vaccines to go to poor countries that haven't gotten any.

peak globohomo

1
bubble_bursts 1 point ago +1 / -0

globohomo who has reached his conscience limit

14
WuTangFlu2020 14 points ago +14 / -0

[career] suicide week? 🤷‍♀️

1
KickingPugilist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where are the Clinton's?? XD

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
10
ObjectiveReality 10 points ago +10 / -0

So I've looked into this and according to the NYT and Yahoo News, yes, Phil Krause (Deputy Director for Vaccines Research and Review) and Marion Gruber (Director for Vaccines Research and Review) abruptly resigned from their positions at the end of last month.

Phil Krause is also the lead author on this article published in Lancet along with his boss (with a publish date of two days ago) which I'll devote the rest of this comment to the discussion of

First and foremost, Phil isn't anti covid vax, and spends most of his time in the article extoling the virues of the current vaccination program to earn the requisite credibility necessary when you're about to say something heretical. However at face value the only criticism is a staunch position against additional boosters.

I could pick some positive out of context reasonings, such as his expression of concern over serious side effects, but he pre-empts that by stating that "the positives of vaccination far outweigh the risks". His primary argument is that limited doses would be better served in vaccinating those who remain unvaccinated, rather than persuing unsupported supposition that boosters will provide much if any additional benefit except perhaps in select cases. But if you read deeply, this is a man confused that no one is listening to what the data says when it goes against what they want.

What I feel is most important is the one line that everyone here needs to know was uttered:

Careful and public scrutiny of the evolving data will be needed to assure that decisions about boosting are informed by reliable science more than by politics.

I mean, that's the eye into the workings and the reasonings for their resignation more than anything else in the article. The FDA is making decisions entirely based on politics rather than data, these two drew their line, and resigned over it.

Basically they just received their first red pill suppository. That haven't quite woken up to ask,"wait, was it political from the beginning?", which will then lead to, "wait, all that data I reviewed, how much of it was fraudulently compiled?", which will lead to "did I recommend things that only made sense because I assumed the data was valid? Was this all horse shit from the beginning??"

They may not be quite there yet, but the fact that they aknowledge this, is telling:

Estimates may be confounded both by patient characteristics at the start of vaccine roll-out and by time-varying factors that are missed by electronic health records. *For example, those classified as unvaccinated might include some who were in fact vaccinated, some who are already protected because of previous infection, or some whose vaccination was deferred because of COVID-19 symptoms.

Sound familiar? We aren't the only ones tht saw that and went, "wait, that's bullshit, you can't categorize like that"

Basically, their frustrations, and argument, revolve around a lack of evidence suggesting the vaccine loses efficacy against severe disease, which is all that matters, and so there is absolutely no data supporting a push for booster ... yet their superiors are pushing hard for that.

To date, none of these studies has provided credible evidence of substantially declining protection against severe disease, even when there appear to be declines over time in vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease.

Doesn't yet get that the vaccine, and the boosters, has nothing to do with covid, and everything to do with control. He closes by conceding that hey, if we're doing boosters we should first be developing and tailoring new versions for variant the variants, like with the flu, not just doing another round.

He must have been really confused why these seemigly logical arguments didn't get him anywhere, but it's because he still thinks any of this has anything to do with facts and data.

And I'd love to pick apart those covid vaccine efficacy figures included (they are missing the control! Where's the 'unvaccinated' efficacy by which to compare the vaccinated results against?) but I won't. Because that's not the take away here.

TLDR: Top vaccine regulatory research decison makers resigned because the FDA decided that politics, not data, should guide their approval process.

4
Everydaypast 4 points ago +4 / -0

THANK YOU for not overhyping and researching this for what it actually is.

I was wondering when normies would start to get concerned with decisions being made in spite of lacking data and the conflicting categorizations.

Looks like it's finally starting to happen, which I find to encouraging. Better late than never and one step at a time.

2
ObjectiveReality 2 points ago +2 / -0

It happened at the top because these two were exposed to the data, and exposed to the politics in direct conflict with the data.

Your average normie never sees an ounce of data, and so only hears the politics, so I wouldn't say it's happening. But it's definately an article to download and show for someone on the fence.

That one line about making decisions on politics rather than data is all they should need to read. If one decision is untrustworthy and politically motivated, they institution loses all credibility.

And credibility is the foundation for believe in the normies. "Well the FDA said...."

1
Everydaypast 1 point ago +1 / -0

I was referring to the ability to discern mainstream consensus when mentioning "normies".

But yeah, I don't expect any big changes of opinion to occur due to this but I believe this may be a starting point of something that eventually will.

5
MAGA_Patriot_1776 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thanks Vidura!👈🏻

Great article!

Here is the link to the Brownstone Institute post referenced in the thread reader link. Worth the read for frens here!

The Meaning of the FDA Resignations, https://brownstone.org/articles/the-meaning-of-the-fda-resignations/

2
CQVFEFE 2 points ago +2 / -0

Nothing to see here

--ABCNNBCBS

2
Phishhed44 2 points ago +2 / -0

WHOA!!! 2 DHS, now 2 FDA?!! I’m thinkin reduced sentences; the crime’s BEEN DONE!!

2
JoeGil72 2 points ago +2 / -0

After the Lancet bat article, not sure we should ever trust the Lancet

1
Striker1 1 point ago +1 / -0

In the lancet article it says we need to weigh the cost benefit of doing boosters right now. They said in addition it might undermine the public’s confidence in the vaxx too (ya think?). They also said that it’s the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease.. Honestly it’s hard to read their bs although it deserves a though review and analysis as they spin the truth constantly about what the vax can do.

1
iamherefortheluls 1 point ago +1 / -0

Guys, you should read the stuff you post before you clap.

he is saying the current vaccines are good enough.

also this

the unvaccinated are still the major drivers of transmission and are themselves at the highest risk of serious disease

also his main worry seems to be that he wants vaccines to go to poor countries that haven't gotten any.

This is peak globohomo. Spread this letter if you wish to justify more repression against unvaccinated.

1
KickingPugilist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Off Topic but Dr. Pim Van Lommel did a near death experience study in the Netherlands that has been smeared but he found 12 common elements across all cultures throughout history.

He had several hospitals take EKGs and other methods to verify death and followed up with the patients at different points.

Those that had NDEs usually died sooner long term but were at peace with their fate.

Just something worth checking out.

I read his whole book and saw all of the smearing done afterwards.

Nothing is prestigious anymore, the lancet is also compromised, glad they published that though.

1
TrustingGod 1 point ago +1 / -0

This movie is riveting!

The boosters are coming soon & all of those that sneer at others giving up their careers for not being jabbed will face a booster shot or lose their careers 😂 & round & round it goes.

1
wQkeAF 1 point ago +1 / -0

Next Friday, Sept 24, is the deadline for pfizer to provide detailed data about the vax, correct?

It might be wishful thinking for me to think that they'll be open about disclosing negative info, as opposed to fabricating information or saying it's inconclusive. But I still wonder if those resignations and that letter are related to the the 24th.

1
subbookkeeper 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is not what the headline is suggesting.

They are advising against boosters for 3 main reasons:

1 - There are still unvaccinated people

2 - The risk/benefit math might weigh poorly with repeated boosters

3 - The signals of wavering immunity may not mean that much anyway.

You have to read the article all the way through.

If boosters (whether expressing original or variant antigens) are ultimately to be used, there will be a need to identify specific circumstances in which the direct and indirect benefits of doing so are, on balance, clearly beneficial.

And from the conclusion

The vaccines that are currently available are safe, effective, and save lives. The limited supply of these vaccines will save the most lives if made available to people who are at appreciable risk of serious disease and have not yet received any vaccine. Even if some gain can ultimately be obtained from boosting, it will not outweigh the benefits of providing initial protection to the unvaccinated.

1
OneArmedViolinist 1 point ago +1 / -0

They don't want to swing with the rest of them after Nuremberg 2.0. If they turned in EVERYONE right now and blew the whistle on ALL THE STUFF they know, I could see giving them 20-40 years in prison instead of public execution. After a trial, of course.

1
pearlrevolver 1 point ago +1 / -0

From The Lancet article:

The vaccines that are currently available are safe, effective, and save lives. The limited supply of these vaccines will save the most lives if made available to people who are at appreciable risk of serious disease and have not yet received any vaccine. Even if some gain can ultimately be obtained from boosting, it will not outweigh the benefits of providing initial protection to the unvaccinated. If vaccines are deployed where they would do the most good, they could hasten the end of the pandemic by inhibiting further evolution of variants. Indeed, WHO has called for a moratorium on boosting until the benefits of primary vaccination have been made available to more people around the world.18 This is a compelling issue, particularly as the currently available evidence does not show the need for widespread use of booster vaccination in populations that have received an effective primary vaccination regimen.

All I'm getting from this is that they want to stick to focusing on getting everyone initially vaxxed before they push boosters. Not really a smoking gun IMO. Talk of boosters is probably turning off more people from getting initially vaxxed in the first place.

0
tobeselfevident 0 points ago +1 / -1

I don't think this is as big as you're making it. Not sure I'd have this stickied. Simply put: they're just arguing that boosters for the vaccinated RATHER than initial shots for the unvaccinated, is not preferable. They're basically just still arguing that everybody on earth needs to be vaccinated. So they're kind of shifting blame back from the "undervaccinated" to the "unvaccinated."

They still wanna stick their thing in us.

0
deleted 0 points ago +6 / -6
6
synergystic 6 points ago +8 / -2

Handshake is doing handshake things.. whoda thunk

5
pearlrevolver 5 points ago +5 / -0

The two FDA officials — Office of Vaccines Research and Review director Marion Gruber and deputy director Phil Krause — are reportedly stepping down from their posts in protest of the Biden administration's push for booster shots.

FOX: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-covid-booster-shots-experts-follow-science

CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/31/two-senior-fda-vaccine-regulators-are-stepping-down.html

CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/31/health/fda-vaccine-officials-step-down/index.html

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +4 / -4
1
Phishhed44 1 point ago +2 / -1

Why are you here Capt’n Jagov?

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
5
GoingCamaro 5 points ago +5 / -0

"discussed it" how?

0
deleted 0 points ago +5 / -5