Why Is CDC Pushing Vax on Kids When Fauci Says It Failed? | Over The Target

In spite of the mounting evidence that the COVID mRNA vaccines don't work particularly well, plus the adverse side effects associated with them, the CDC has gone ahead and added these to the childhood immunization schedule, which is a list of immunizations that are recommended by the CDC and sometimes end up being mandated by state and local governments. And it's worth noting that this was the very same week that Anthony Fauci published a paper in a scholarly journal arguing that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines do not work. How do these two things possibly go together? Let's dig into some details. I'm Brendan Falun. And I'm Lee Smith. And we're Over the Top. I can remember seeing this being reported on several months back that the CDC's advisors were recommending to them that they introduce the mRNA vaccines to the childhood immunization schedule. And I thought, given all the evidence that is mounting against these vaccines, that this was unlikely to happen. But it has happened. And some of the evidence I'd just like to point to, this highlight two examples that have come through. One is from the New England Journal of Medicine. This was a study that was published in June 2021. And it showed a study of approximately 4,000 women who were given the mRNA vaccine, of which 827 completed their pregnancy. And 13.9% of those were pregnancy losses. So that's 13.9% of these mothers who lost their babies after taking the mRNA vaccine. Another study I wanted to point to is one that's just recently come out from the Florida Department of Health, which showed that in men aged between 18 and 39, there was an 84% increase in cardiac-related death. So those are just two examples of the very compelling evidence that's coming through against the safety of these vaccines. Yeah, I mean, there's plenty of evidence right now. I mean, this is one of the reasons why many European countries are preventing young men from taking the mRNA vaccines. They understand that they're causing serious heart disease in young men. And so the idea now that an American public health institution is recommending these be taken by young people is an extraordinary event. It's an extraordinary event in American history. And we have two startlingly contrasting events here, Lee. One with the introduction of the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule. And at the same time, we've had Anthony Fauci, who has basically been the driving force, largely the driving force between policies that have been instituted by the federal government, like mandating the COVID vaccine for any workplace that has more than 100 workers, for all military service personnel. He is now saying that these vaccines don't work very well. He's finally admitting this. And also that there needs to be a better selection of vaccines available for people to choose from. You know, these mandates have carried over to different schools as well. And as you say, Anthony Fauci really is the driving force here. And let's remember the promises that Dr. Fauci made as these vaccines were rolled out, that they were effective and safe. And we've understood, we first understood that they weren't very effective. And the first, most obvious piece of evidence of that is the boosters, which showed that the two original doses of the vaccines were not effective. And they've rolled out booster after booster. Then we started to understand, as you described just a second ago, Brendan, that these vaccines also had, in many instances, very dangerous and in some cases, deadly side effects as well. And now here's Fauci changing his tune. And a recent report has come out from Canada showing that over 25% of children in Canada who have been entitled to receive the COVID vaccine haven't taken it, which signals the kind of distrust level that they have there in Canada, which I think is actually greater here in America, because there was a poll that was taken in 2022 after the vaccine became available to children under five. And it showed that only 18% of parents were willing to go ahead and directly give this to their children. 38% wanted to think about it, weren't prepared to make that decision straight away. But overall, it gives you a sense of the kind of dilemma that parents are facing, where they're getting this information coming from the government that's telling them this is safe, it's the right choice to make for their children. But at the same time, getting contrasting information coming through from media like ours, which is signaling certain dangers about taking these vaccines and particularly giving them to children. Well, I mean, understandably, this is a country, it's a society that trusts doctors, right? We believe, in spite of accusations to the contrary, Americans believe in the techniques of science. We believe in the empirical method. We believe in truth, that you can distinguish truth from falsehood. Therefore, parents are inclined to trust doctors, absolutely. Then there are other factors as well, like the different social factors, the different professional factors, so that parents don't want to be seen as fringe outsiders. If they question the efficacy of vaccines, they don't want to be labeled anti-vax. They don't want to have to deal with that themselves and they don't want their children subjected to ridicule either. So these are some of the pressures that parents are under. Even if some of them do have questions about the vaccine, they may nonetheless keep quiet about it. There's another aspect of this, Lee, that really can't be discounted, and that's what I'd call the global censorship machine that masquerades as some kind of disinformation service. And the role that this has played in blocking out information about the vaccines and treatments that could be quite effective, like ivermectin, which we know showed quite a high efficacy in places like India and Peru. In Peru, you can see the difference across total deaths, deaths with COVID, and COVID infection between states where ivermectin treatment was dispensed and those where it was not. In 10 states where ivermectin was mass dispensed, death rate dropped 74% over 30 days. In Lima, the capital of Peru, where ivermectin was restricted, there was just a 25% drop in excess deaths. These are figures from Peru's 2021 Delta variant outbreak. And yet the National Institute of Health still recommends against the use of ivermectin. While the FDA maintains it's just for animals. Well, global is a very good way to put it, and we know precisely what's happening in the United States with everything from releases of the Twitter files to also different court documents, filings from the Missouri versus Biden case, where we're seeing all sorts of evidence of how federal government officials are in touch with their big tech partners to censor information. As you say, they package what they're doing as anti-disinformation organizations, but that's not the case at all. They're censoring important information, whether it has to do with COVID-19, whether it had to do with Hunter Biden's laptop, whether it has to do with FBI involvement and messing around in American elections. We see this huge censorship consortium stepping in and preventing important information from getting to the American public. As we go on a little further, we could also mention that James O'Keefe clipped the Project Veritas video. People saw it, but it didn't get universal distribution, so a lot of parents are going to miss that, what they were saying, what the Pfizer executive was saying about the vaccines and the dangerous things they're doing. Developing today, Project Veritas now reports they've caught a Pfizer executive on camera admitting to some shady profiteering. We'll let the clip speak for itself. It sounds like gain of function to me. I don't know, it's a little bit different. I think it's different. It's definitely not gain of function. It sounds like it is. I mean, it's okay. No, no, no, no. Directed evolution is very different. Well, you're not supposed to do gain of function research with the viruses. They recommend not. But you do these selected directional mutations to try to see if you can make it more potent. So there is research underlying about that. I don't know how that's going to work. There might not be any more outbreaks. And I think censorship is a major factor in what's preventing parents from getting the information they need about the vaccines. Because you can assume pretty safely that parents want the best for their children. Parents do not want to endanger their children. So if they have this information available to them, if they're aware of other alternatives for their children's safety, parents are going to go for those options. And this brings up another question about the motive behind adding these vaccines to the childhood immunization schedule. Keeping in mind the kind of concerns that there are around the vaccines at the same time. I mean, if you consider the risk of a child getting COVID and getting seriously ill or dying from it, I think it's far overshadowed by the risk of something like obesity that leads to diabetes and heart issues. If these people want to protect children's health, why don't they look at coordinating sports programs, exercise programs with a focused dietary program? I think that would be a lot less fraught than introducing a questionable vaccine into the childhood immunization schedule. Join me on Vital Signs. I have a new episode coming out this week, looking at a breakthrough and innovative new treatment that is related to Alzheimer's and other severe diseases. You can follow me on C, that's S-E-E dot Vital Signs to get information about that new episode and any other new episodes that are coming out.