First a trickle....Now a flood

[Goddess]

Confessions of a White House Public Health Priestess

Excerpt:

I was told that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, an acquaintance of candidate Trump, had gotten him to commit to establishing a Vaccine Safety Commission once he was in office. Mr. Kennedy was now calling and wanted to get the promised commission going.

It was my job to make this problem go away.

I was all in.

We couldn’t have a meeting, an event, or a commission that communicated to the world that vaccines were anything less than the Greatest Public Health Victory we all believed them to be (can I get an “amen?”). So I called up NIH leaders Francis Collins and Tony Fauci and asked them to go ahead and take the meeting, but off-site somewhere, far from the White House and the public view.

That meeting, which took place at the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland, has become somewhat notorious in MAHA lore.

Mr. Kennedy, as well as Del Bigtree and Aaron Siri with the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), met with The Authorities about The Science. All of them have spoken publicly about that meeting, where Dr. Fauci assured them of the mountains of studies demonstrating vaccine safety. Reportedly, when asked to produce them, he rifled through his papers as if they were just at the tip of his fingertips. When he couldn’t find them, he promised to deliver the studies later. Which never happened. ICAN filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get them.

HHS settled the lawsuit with a stunning admission - on the record - that no such studies existed.

[Goddess]

Here's the most updated VAERS data on amyloids and prions (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) spanning 1990 to the present.

Rate per 100,000 reports per year:

 

Increase in cases of this rare and quickly fatal disease coincide with increase of cases (26 increasing to 50) in Europe:

Emergence of a New Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: 26 Cases of the Human Version of Mad-Cow Disease, Days After a COVID-19 Injection | International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research

 

A Potential Role of the Spike Protein in Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Narrative Review | Cureus

[Goddess]

Heart failure rising among young Canadians: research data

 

Perhaps in related news, Pfizer is recruiting for a study to “examine the potential long-term effects associated with myocarditis/pericarditis following vaccination with COMIRNATY.”

A Study to Learn About The COVID-19 (Study) Vaccine (Called COMIRNATY) in People That Are Less Than 21 Years Old. - Myocarditis Foundation

 

From 2021:

 

PHAC had their 1st notification Dec 4,2020... according to house of commons response Q766. In 2022 PHAC funded MYCOVACC, studying myocarditis following COVID vax:

MYCOVACC - Canadian Cardiovascular Society

 

 

 

 

[User]

20 hours ago, Goddess said:

Here's the most updated VAERS data on amyloids and prions (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease) spanning 1990 to the present.

VAERS is not a database of this disease or any other disease.

You are once again improperly using VAERS and pushing an article making a weak correlation = causation argument that quickly falls apart when you look at how many people have this disease each year before, after, and during COVID.

 

[Goddess]

Leaving this here for posterity:

OSF | Unreliable Evidence: Flawed Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Comparisons in Canada’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Regina Wateel has a PhD in Statistics, experienced in program evaluation and risk/benefit analysis.

She also wrote this book:

** NOTE:  I'm not interested in your quick google searches to find "dirt" on Ms. Wateel.  If you can't discuss her data and analysis, don't bother. **

When Pseudoscience, Politics & Fraud Converge

What lengths will ideologically or financially-driven researchers and politicians go to impose their will upon others?

Throughout the pandemic we've witnessed a slide from objective clinical research to easily manipulated "real-world" studies to purely fictional simulations completely detached from reality. "Consensus" (aka groupthink) quickly replaced scientific scrutiny and civil discourse plummeted. It became difficult to discern scientific recommendations from political talking points.

On April 25, 2022 a very dangerous line was crossed. Leaders in the Canadian research and medical community rubber-stamped a clearly fraudulent study. Its overarching purpose: to use "science" to justify discrimination, sow hatred and reinterpret the notion of inalienable rights.

Within hours of the study's official publication, dozens of articles in top national papers flooded Canada warning of the dire risk of merely hanging out with unvaccinated people

[User]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

** NOTE:  I'm not interested in your quick google searches to find "dirt" on Ms. Wateel.  If you can't discuss her data and analysis, don't bother. **

You continue to ignore the data and analysis on just about every response I give you on here...

 

[Goddess]

I hope this is a parody account, but I suspect it's not.

[Goddess]

The Information Commissioner emphasizes the importance of properly documenting government decision-making. Remember folks: the government couldn’t justify why the unjabbed weren’t allowed on planes and trains.

Access to information in extraordinary times

 

This is the epic moment when the government’s expert witness who was relied upon to justify vax mandates for travel-Director General at Transport Canada’s “Covid Recovery Team”-is stunned into silence and has to admit there was no document supporting a recommendation for mandates.

[Goddess]

 

Parliamentary documents prove the Trudeau Government deliberately gutted Canada’s worker safety laws to ram through a COVID vaccine that could never pass health and safety standards.

Zero hazard risk assessments.

Zero consultations with workplace health and safety committees.

Zero approvals for a biological preventive measure.

The government intentionally bypassed the full OHS framework to avoid triggering employee rights to refuse dangerous work, know hazards, etc.

[Goddess]

On 5/7/2026 at 12:36 AM, User said:

You continue to ignore the data and analysis on just about every response I give you on here...

To be clear, I don't "ignore" your data, I just see the flaws in the analysis.  

When I know things like *this*, for example, the flawed analyses become quite obvious, as does your adherence to only the approved narrative.

Start with the cleanest example, because it captures the whole pattern in miniature. In early 2020, Anthony Fauci, then the most trusted health voice in the country, described how deadly the new virus was. He did it twice, to two different audiences, eleven days apart. The two descriptions are difficult to reconcile, which is a polite way of saying they don’t match.

First, the doctors. On February 28, 2020, Fauci and two colleagues wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine, the most respected medical journal in America. Talking to fellow physicians, they were cautious. If the real number of infections was much higher than the confirmed cases, they wrote, which they expected, then the death rate “may be considerably less than 1%.” They even said the virus might end up “more akin to” a severe flu season.¹

Notice the hedging: may be, might end up, more akin to. That is how careful people talk when they do not yet know. Fair enough. The virus was barely two months old.

Then, the public. Eleven days later, on March 11, Fauci testified before Congress on national television. The hedging was gone. He told the country that the flu kills about 0.1 percent of the people it infects, and that this virus was “ten times” more deadly than that.²

Ten times deadlier than the flu. No “may be.” No “less than 1%.” Just a clean, terrifying number that ran on every front page in the country. So, which was it? Privately, to the experts, “probably milder than it looks.” Publicly, to everyone else, “ten times the flu.” Same man, same week, two very different messages aimed at two very different rooms.

And the scary number had a flaw baked into it. That “ten times” claim compared the new virus to the flu’s 0.1 percent. But a later peer-reviewed analysis caught the problem: the flu’s 0.1 percent counts deaths against everyone infected, including the millions who barely notice it. The COVID numbers being thrown around counted deaths against confirmed cases only, which skews sicker. He was comparing two different things and calling it one. Do that, and the new virus automatically looks worse than a fair, apples-to-apples comparison would show. The cautious journal version had quietly avoided this trap. The scary public version walked right into it.³

The public got a hard, simple “ten times.” The experts got “may be considerably less than 1%.” If the real worry was the math of mass spread of a virus slightly worse than the flu, then that is what the public deserved to hear, in plain words. Instead, they got a number built to frighten. The confidence got dialed up or down depending on who was listening. That is the whole pattern, and it happened in a single week, from a single person, in his own words. Fauci’s strategy was a confidence game.

 

[CdnFox]

B.C. man suffering reaction to COVID-19 vaccine still trying to get compensation | Globalnews.ca

Just sayin'. 

I think for a lot of the people part of the problem was that they didn't trust the drug but even more so they knew but if a problem appeared with the drug and they suffered harm the government would dodge responsibility as long as humanly possible, preferably until they die

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

To be clear, I don't "ignore" your data, I just see the flaws in the analysis.  

You ignoring my data and your seeing the flaws with it are two separate things that can both be true at the same time. 

I provide data, you ignore it. IF you think there are flaws, then let's see it. 

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

When I know things like *this*, for example, the flawed analyses become quite obvious, as does your adherence to only the approved narrative.

If you are going to copy and paste, provide the source. 

What point do you think this copy-and-paste job makes that you are trying to make?

 

[User]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

B.C. man suffering reaction to COVID-19 vaccine still trying to get compensation | Globalnews.ca

Just sayin'. 

I think for a lot of the people part of the problem was that they didn't trust the drug but even more so they knew but if a problem appeared with the drug and they suffered harm the government would dodge responsibility as long as humanly possible, preferably until they die

What exactly are you just saying?

You are conflating distrust of the COVID vaccine with the government's management of compensation for those injured. 

Those are two different things. 

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, User said:

What exactly are you just saying?

You are conflating distrust of the COVID vaccine with the government's management of compensation for those injured. 

Those are two different things. 

 

I'm saying that the public's distrust (and trust alternatively) was not JUST predicated on concerns over the vaccine but also concerns that the gov't wouldn't be there for people if it tunred out the concerns were valid  (or, on the other side, had strong beliefs the gov't would be there if they were wrong, which have now proven false). 

Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way and absolutely did not Inspire confidence in a lot of people that if there was a risk or the risk was higher or some people unfortunately were affected that the government would care for them and they'd be left on their own.

This is an important lesson. If we ever go through this again one thing the government could do to significantly encourage people to participate in vaccinations is to be honest That there may be risk and to provide convincing steps to show people that if they suffered as a result unexpectedly that the government would be there for them

It may be separate things but there is a direct connection 

 

[User]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Obviously this is somewhat Canada specific, but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way

Where are you getting this from?

Canada has maintained this page as well as has had this position from the beginning, outlining risks:

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vaccines/safety-side-effects.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Here is official statement early on:

 

Statement

December 13, 2020        Ottawa, ON         Public Health Agency of Canada

Dr. Theresa Tam, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, issued the following statement today:

"Like any medication, vaccines can cause side effects and reactions. After being vaccinated, it's common to have mild side effects, such as redness and swelling at the injection site — this is the body's natural response, as it's working to build immunity against a disease. In most instances, these effects resolve quickly and completely. However, it is also possible for someone to have a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine. "

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/news/2020/12/statement-from-the-chief-public-health-officer-of-canada-on-december-13-2020.html

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

and absolutely did not Inspire confidence in a lot of people that if there was a risk or the risk was higher or some people unfortunately were affected that the government would care for them and they'd be left on their own.

Do you have any statistics to show how much vs how little support was provided for those injured? You have one example... that shows it may not be perfect, but... say, the government did provide assistance to the vast majority of folks... then what is your point?

 

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If we ever go through this again one thing the government could do to significantly encourage people to participate in vaccinations is to be honest That there may be risk

They were honest about risk. I gave you two examples. Can you provide any examples where they said there was no risk as you sit here claiming?

Edited May 25 by User

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, User said:

Where are you getting this from?Canada has maintained this page as well as has had this position from the beginning, outlining risks:

Those are not the risks presented to the general public by the media or the politicians of the day. Our own prime minister said those who are vaccine hesitant are usually Misogynists and bigots and waste of space and will have to decide if we are going to tolerate them.

There is no doubt that the vaccines were presented as being so close to being perfectly safe as to make no difference. People don't read the government web pages they listen to the reporters and the politicians when they speak

So the government said it was safe and nobody should be hesitant to take it. That is the thing that happened here in Canada for sure. People who felt differently were mocked and ostracized.

I think just from personal discussions and exposure to people's their thoughts that a lot of people were very afraid that in the event that turned out to be a problem even though the government had suggested it would be there for people that they wouldn't be.

12 minutes ago, User said:

Do you have any statistics to show how much vs how little support was provided for those injured?

Read the article. The government hasn't even been able to process the claims yet. So what I can say with absolute certainty is that there were people who suffered ill effects which financially devastated them who have not received any compensation or help. I literally posted an article on it. The precise number is irrelevant because the point is this is what people feared would happen and it has happened

13 minutes ago, User said:

They were honest about risk. I gave you two examples.

Examples weren't honest about the risk. If anything they severely downplayed the risk. They suggested that the big risk is you might have a little bit of a irritation same as any other vaccine.

But this isn't every other vaccine. So when they claim that the risk level is the same as any other vaccine that you would normally take that is not an accurate statement. That is actually extremely misleading. mNRA vaccines are nothing like existing vaccines. 

And when concerns were raised our gov't came back with "no no, safe and effective no cause for concerns"

Trudeau, Tam say all vaccines are safe and effective after NACI guidance causes confusion | CBC News

The language, the tone the manner and the repetition all sent the constant message that there's practically no chance of any risk 

We now know that's not true and the risks were higher than originally thought. . And fair enough, things change, knowledge becomes available 

But at the time many had fears the gov't was wrong about how safe it was (which turned out to be treu)  But WORSE  a  lot of people were concerned if it turned out the gov't was wrong they'd leave affected people to fend for themsevles. 

And that has now turned out to be true as well. 

 

[Goddess]

4 hours ago, User said:

If you are going to copy and paste, provide the source. 

Dr.  Robert Malone.

[Goddess]

3 hours ago, User said:

Do you have any statistics to show how much vs how little support was provided for those injured?

I've actually posted about this many times.  Going from memory:

Government allotted $50 million for vaccine injury.  $32 million of it went to administration costs.  Big scandal, the contract was recently given to another company.

There are thousands who have now been waiting years for some kind of compensation and the majority are denied anyways.

Dan Hartman was denied.  Kayla Pollack - they "lost" her paperwork twice so far, and have offered her MAID 3 times.  Carrie Sakamoto has been in court for 4 years now.  

They hope you give up and die.

[User]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Those are not the risks presented to the general public by the media or the politicians of the day.

I literally provided you a link to what was said in December 2020. I even quoted the part that said it was from December 2020. 

Another article from 2020 talking about the risks from the CBC:

""You do have to communicate out that there may be risks, and rightfully so, and also communicate about the magnitude of that risk and get people to really understand what that means," he said. "The risk of an allergy happening is probably beyond winning the lottery — that's not to say it's not going to happen, but it's something we need to watch for, it's something we're equipped for.""

...

"Chagla also stressed that health officials will be monitoring for other reactions to COVID-19 vaccines that may show up over time. He said communication and transparency are the best ways to assuage vaccine hesitancy — as well as clearly stating to those who are eligible the risks of not getting the vaccine."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pfizer-vaccine-allergy-risk-canada-1.5839397

Back to the point, you originally asserted:

"but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way"

I have given you links to the government website, public health statements, and media coverage now. 

You are attempting to whitewash history here with your revisionism and the facts show you are wrong. 

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Read the article. The government hasn't even been able to process the claims yet.

I read up some more on this and yeah, looks like Canada screwed this up, giving out the contract to a 3rd party who spent most of the money on their administrative costs and only in the last few months has the government taken it back over themselves. Pretty shitty. Typical government stupidity. 

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Examples weren't honest about the risk. If anything they severely downplayed the risk. They suggested that the big risk is you might have a little bit of a irritation same as any other vaccine.

OK, please elaborate on what the actual risk is you think existed then and how they downplayed that. I can't argue against an imaginary standard. 

I have given you ample links and quotes now to show you they did in fact discuss risk. Your original assertion was not that they downplayed, but that again:

"but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way"

That was wrong, so now your claim is they downplayed the risk. So... lets hear it, what is the risk, what is you based that on?





 

35 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Dr.  Robert Malone.

I figured that much out, it is on you to provide the source when you copy paste. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

I literally provided you a link to what was said in December 2020.

 

I literally provided you a link to what was said in early 2021 and pointed out that nobody read what was said in a government release in December 2020

This isn't complicated. You should be able to figure out that what is said on the news channels and interviews is consumed at a much higher rate than a government release on a web page

And I noted that even on that link you provided it compared it to other existing vaccines which isn't true. Please pay attention

 

Quote

Another article from 2020 talking about the risks from the CBC:

""You do have to communicate out that there may be risks, and rightfully so, and also communicate about the magnitude of that risk and get people to really understand what that means," he said. "The risk of an allergy happening is probably beyond winning the lottery — that's not to say it's not going to happen, but it's something we need to watch for, it's something we're equipped for.""

And right there you lose the argument

You just posted an example where they severely and I do mean severely downplayed the risks and pretended they were so non-existent that winning the lottery was more likely. 

And that wasn't true. We know now that the risk complications is radically higher than that.

So you already shot yourself in the foot with your own arguments. He posted one example that compared it to regular vaccines which is untrue completely and then posted an example where they claimed it was far less of a risk than it actually was.

You can argue that they didn't know how much of a risk it was but even that proves my point. That just means they were trying to tell us what a low risk it was when they didn't actually know

Further it doesn't alter the fact that what I said was that well the government pretending it was safer than it was is an issue I think that another issue equally important was the fact that people did not have faith in the government doing anything should the risk prove to be higher

And that's exactly what happened

 

So both your evidence and mind shows the government severely down playing the risk and pretending it's essentially non-existent and comparable to existing vaccines. And the new story shows that people who were concerned that the government may not be there for them should it prove to be more serious we're absolutely right

Every now and then you pick a fight over ideology rather than facts and it's never a good look for you. It is an easily demonstrable fact that on many occasions in both Canada and America the government severely downplayed the risks and made statements that they did not know to be true at the time. It is equally demonstrable that there have been complications and more than expected and in Canada anyway the government hasn't stepped up to the plate

Therefore what I said was demonstrably and easily verifiably true and in fact your own attempt to refute it has proven it to be true.

Next time start with a question and arrive at an answer instead of the other way around

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I literally provided you a link to what was said in early 2021 and pointed out that nobody read what was said in a government release in December 2020

You just keep moving those goalposts... first you tried to claim the risks were not told... now you claim, well, no one read them. 

This stuff was reported on. I already gave you a link. 
 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

This isn't complicated. You should be able to figure out that what is said on the news channels and interviews is consumed at a much higher rate than a government release on a web page

No, this is not complicated at all. The risks were reported on. To the point, you said, and you were wrong that:

"but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way"

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And I noted that even on that link you provided it compared it to other existing vaccines which isn't true. Please pay attention

What is not true? Be specific.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

And right there you lose the argument

You just posted an example where they severely and I do mean severely downplayed the risks and pretended they were so non-existent that winning the lottery was more likely. 

And that wasn't true. We know now that the risk complications is radically higher than that.

LOL, the point was that the media did report on this. 

Now you are playing hindsight. More risks were uncovered later, yeah. At the time, that was what was known about the risk. Nothing was severely downplayed. 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So you already shot yourself in the foot with your own arguments. He posted one example that compared it to regular vaccines which is untrue completely and then posted an example where they claimed it was far less of a risk than it actually was.

What are you even talking about?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

You can argue that they didn't know how much of a risk it was but even that proves my point. That just means they were trying to tell us what a low risk it was when they didn't actually know

Once again... hindsight. One again, your argument was that they were unwilling to admit there was a risk in any possible way. I have shown you the government said there was risk, the media said there was risk, it was clearly talked about, that there was risk. 

Now you just keep changing your argument to saying they did not know future risk that would be discovered. Duh. 

 

 

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

So both your evidence and mind shows the government severely down playing the risk and pretending it's essentially non-existent and comparable to existing vaccines. And the new story shows that people who were concerned that the government may not be there for them should it prove to be more serious we're absolutely right

No, it doesn't. You have yet to show or explain what this risk is that existed at that time that they failed to report on or speak about. I asked you. You have ignored me. Here was my question to you that you ignored:

OK, please elaborate on what the actual risk is you think existed then and how they downplayed that. I can't argue against an imaginary standard. 

 

[Goddess]

15 hours ago, User said:

I have given you links to the government website, public health statements, and media coverage now. 

You are attempting to whitewash history here with your revisionism and the facts show you are wrong. 

I don't really care what was said in your random link about the possibility of vaccine injury because the reality is that is NOT the message that went out to the public.

They were sold to the public as "safe & effective" and they were neither.

Bourla came out and said the jabs were 95% effective and 100% safe.  I posted his announcement here.

When I first started sharing data and incidents, the majority of people on this forum viciously attacked me and said there were no injuries.

I also posted FOI'ed  information that injuries were deliberately suppressed.

So, no.  It was not communicated publicly that injury was a possibility. There were no cost/risk benefit analyses done.  A universal medical procedure was mandated for all, regardless of risk, and that is not how scientific medicine works.  That's how Big Pharma works.

[CdnFox]

12 hours ago, User said:

You just keep moving those goalposts... first you tried to claim the risks were not told... now you claim, well, no one read them. 

Ahhh we're at the point where you realize you're losing the argument so you decide to lie.  Disappointing. 

In fact, what I said quite clearly was that the politicians and the media refused to state the risks in any meaningful way.  Not that they never mentioned risk at all anywhere. 

As i have pointed out the webpage you provided claims the danger is no different than any other vaccine.  THAT IS NOT TRUE.  Period.  Full stop.   And you've completely failed to address that simple fact   It's not hindsight, they knew that they did not fully understand the risks. 

The risks were MUCH different. The unknowns were MUCH higher. MNRA vaccines are a brand new tech that has NOT undergone the same kind of rigouros testing and does NOT have the history of regular vaccines.  The chances for unknown effects was MUCH higher than regular vaccines. 

But that's not what they said. They said it was the same as any regular vaccine 

AND in PUBLIC, they downplayed it even more. It was FREQUENTLY said by our politicians that the vaccine was insanely safe and anyone who said otherwise was a terrible person of one type or another. "Deniers" were the scum of the earth for suggesting there was any concern, 

In YOUR neck of the woods, politicians were even worse, with Biden saying outright that if you get the vaccine, you'll never have to worry about catching COVID, etc., etc. Or trump saying 'covid is just like the flu' the other way. 

There's no arguing the fact  that The government severely underplayed the risks and did not in any meaningful way express the nature of the risk or the unknown quantities to people. That is a fact proven by your own post

Which brings us to the second part, which we've already discussed, is also true

 

So you're 100% wrong. You were kind enough to provide the proof where the government was trying to pretend there was no more risk than a regular vaccine when that turned out to be a complete fabrication

12 hours ago, User said:

LOL, the point was that the media did report on this. 

They reported falsely on it. Although, to be fair, they were reporting what they were told by the government

12 hours ago, User said:

Now you are playing hindsight.

There is no hindsight involved. The government knew at the time that this was new technology and that it was impossible to know all of the risks or how many complications or problems there would be with something this new. But that's not what they said. They said it's the same as any other vaccine. They knew damn well it was not the same as every other vaccine.

They knew the risks were higher than what they were suggesting and so did most people with half a brain who could actually looked into it.

What they should have been saying is there are unknown risks and there may very well be complications that we can't anticipate. But for people who are in the at risk groups for covid such as the elderly etc based on what we know today we believe the risks of covid are much much higher. 

That would have at least been honest. But the problem was that they wanted 100 percent of the population to have the vaccine because they believed that it would 'wipe out' covid and they didn't want ANYONE to have ANY reason to say no. 

 

12 hours ago, User said:

Once again... hindsight.

No, it's not hindsight; they knew at the time that they did not fully understand the risks. That was information that they had at that time, that they knew there might be risks above and beyond what they were aware of and that that probably would turn out to be true. They may not have known exactly how much risk but they would have known there was risk

But that's not what they said. As per your own quote they blew it off as being no different than any other vaccine and that was not true.

Just in case you're unaware, mNRA Technology is a brand new science that is radically different than anything that has come before and has never been used wide scale in the past. It's still being developed. It holds a tremendous amount of promise partially because it is capable of being adapted to carry different "payloads" Which means it can be used as a base to create medicines for cancer and a bunch of other things.  

But it's new.  And they knew perfectly well it had not been fully tested or deployed and the ONLY reason they used it here was because they felt the crisis justified the risk. But they didn't advise the public as to how significant the risk was.

 

The government did not express the risks to the public in any meaningful way.  They severely downplayed any risk when it was mentioned at all and suggested people that felt there was more risk were terrible people.

A lot of people doubted whether or not the government was accurate in this respect. But they further doubted that if it turned out the government was wrong that the gov't would stand behind them and resolve the issues that DID come up

And again that's proven true. 

[Goddess]

What this whole Covid crisis has done to me, is that it kept pushing me to stretch the limits of my understanding of an unprecedentedly complex gain-of-function experiment on human beings.

On the one hand, it has brought out the angel in me when it comes to defending science and feeling deep empathy and compassion for the countless victims of this large-scale in vivo experiment.

But on the other hand, it has also brought out the devil in me toward all those who trivialize or cut corners with the complex science behind this immune escape pandemic and toward those guilty of polarization, conflicts of interest, willful blindness, blatant injustice or deceit.

[User]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhh we're at the point where you realize you're losing the argument so you decide to lie.  Disappointing. 

In fact, what I said quite clearly was that the politicians and the media refused to state the risks in any meaningful way.  Not that they never mentioned risk at all anywhere. 

The only one continually changing their story here is you. Once again, this was your assertion:

""but I think a big part of the problem was that the government was unwilling to admit that there was a possible risk in any meaningful way""

Once again, I have proven this wrong. 

Now you change your story to "any meaningful" way. A subjective pile of BS you did not assert before and can't possibly be countered now because you can just say anything was not "meaningful" enough for you. 

 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

As i have pointed out the webpage you provided claims the danger is no different than any other vaccine.  THAT IS NOT TRUE.  Period.  Full stop.   And you've completely failed to address that simple fact   It's not hindsight, they knew that they did not fully understand the risks. 

You have not pointed out anything; you just make the assertion and ignore my asking you to actually quote what you are talking about. 

You keep talking about the risks but refuse to define them. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you're 100% wrong. You were kind enough to provide the proof where the government was trying to pretend there was no more risk than a regular vaccine when that turned out to be a complete fabrication

Once again, you just ramble on making assertions. You offer nothing of substance. Then declare yourself the winner. 

Back to the point, again, I have responded to your original BS assertion and provided numerous links and quotes, unlike you. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

They reported falsely on it. Although, to be fair, they were reporting what they were told by the government

Again, changing the goal posts. You said they did not report on the risk, I show you they did. Now you claim it was false. 

OK, show me what was false with the link I shared. Lets see you make your case. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There is no hindsight involved. The government knew at the time that this was new technology and that it was impossible to know all of the risks or how many complications or problems there would be with something this new. But that's not what they said. They said it's the same as any other vaccine. They knew damn well it was not the same as every other vaccine.

LOL, that is the very definition of hindsight. You are looking at the risks discovered later and saying they should have informed about them before they even knew them. 

That is not only hindsight, it is just stupid. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But that's not what they said. As per your own quote they blew it off as being no different than any other vaccine and that was not true.

That is not what my quote said. That is your retarded mischaracterization. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But they didn't advise the public as to how significant the risk was.

What risk? Again, DEFINE this risk they were supposed to inform the public of. 

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The government did not express the risks to the public in any meaningful way.  They severely downplayed any risk when it was mentioned at all and suggested people that felt there was more risk were terrible people.

More of your baseless subjective BS. Also, moving the goal posts from your original assertion.