The Narrative Starts to Crumble: MSM admits “We are overcounting covid deaths and hospitalizations,” & CDC admits covid vax “might” cause strokes.

by Jeff Childers title via Brucha Weisberger

💉 Late yesterday afternoon, right before the dull weekend news cycle, where you always bury inconvenient announcements, the CDC excreted an electrifying limited hangout: way over in one tiny corner of the data, the hyper-diligent agency detected a barely-noticeable signal of a link between the jabs and sudden and unexpected ischemic strokes. Now it is going to diligently investigate, you betcha.
 
For safety.
 
An ‘ischemic stroke’ is when blood clots or other particles block the blood vessels to the brain. So the stroke itself isn’t the cause of death. It’s just a side effect of the clotting.
 
Politico ran the story with this headline: “CDC, FDA See Possible Link Between Pfizer’s Bivalent Shot and Strokes.” And for good measure, they added this sub-headline: “The agencies said the surveillance signal ‘is very unlikely’ to represent a ‘true clinical risk’ and said they continued to recommend the vaccine.”
 
Well why not?
 
These days, when they say something is “very unlikely,” that is wokecabulary for, “it’s almost certainly true.” Even though Politico’s subheadline was loaded with weasel words and reassuring intent, I’m going to argue it was really meant to make people hesitate. It’s an open question as to “why?”
 
To make it totally fair, I’m including a screen cap of the headline in situ:
 

 
First notice the deliberate use of the quote marks. Next, note that Politico also used the attributive word “said” twice in the same sentence. On a basic level, both the quote marks and the word “said” are intended to show the words’ source. Politico was quoting “The agencies.”
 
But there’s another layer. Corporate media is trained in using the quotation marks as little tiny daggers of punctuation to indicate skepticism. For example, they usually quote anything positive Governor DeSantis says about Florida, to signal their disbelief.
 
It might seem like a super fine point, but the skeptical quote marks and the leery double “saids” are tells. Contrast the original sentence with how easily Politico could have written the same thing, but without the quotes and either “said,” and without losing a jot of meaning:
 
Before:

The agencies said the surveillance signal “is very unlikely” to represent a “true clinical risk” and said they continued to recommend the vaccine.

After:

The surveillance signal is very unlikely to represent a true clinical risk and the agencies continued to recommend the vaccine.

See the difference? The second sentence is a lot stronger, and doesn’t sound nearly as suspicious. The rewritten version is the style we usually see in stories about the jabs.
 
By quoting the CDC’s words, Politico is saying, “don’t blame us, this is what the CDC said.”
 
I also think the words “true clinical risk” are telling, and Politico noticed, and highlighted them. What, exactly, is the difference between “true clinical risk” and just regular “clinical risk?” The only alternate to “true clinical risk” is “false clinical risk,” which isn’t clinical risk at all. The over-emphasis of using the totally unnecessary word “true” as a modifier for “clinical risk” makes readers subconsciously wary.
 
It’s like that old chestnut from Hamlet: methinks the CDC doth protest too much.
 
The CDC’s actual statement, as quoted in the article’s body, is even worse:

“Although the totality of the data currently suggests that it is very unlikely that the signal … represents a true clinical risk, we believe it is important to share this information with the public, as we have in the past, when one of our safety monitoring systems detects a signal,” the statement said.

“Totality of the data.” Please.
 
I called the announcement a limited hangout because the CDC cabined its “very unlikely signal” to just one single type of one lone brand of vaccine, Pfizer’s booster, and one narrow age range: over 65. All the other post-jab strokes in the other age ranges and brands are just distracting coincidences. No signals there.
 
Politico also made this remarkable concession:

[R]are but serious side effects — which can occur with any pharmaceutical product — have arisen since the vaccines’ debut.

It’s a cautious admission, not unlike what we’ve seen before, but note the absence of the adverb “very” before the word “rare,” and use of the word “serious” to modify side effects. That’s huge. There is a big difference between “rare” and “very rare.” And you better believe Politico chose its words carefully.
 
Anyway, the announcement set social media on fire.
 

CDC admits vaccines are causing strokes. This is the start of the unraveling narrative.

— Ryan Cunningham (@rycunni) January 13, 2023

 

CDC/FDA are way late on this stroke signal! Look at these massive numbers of stroke within 28 days from taking a COVID-19 vaccine in three Nordic countries! This woman was on FOX telling her story in 2021 and I provided commentary. #courageousdiscourse https://t.co/fAbHjrrFpd

— Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH™ (@P_McCulloughMD) January 14, 2023

 
Florida’s Surgeon General also noticed and, to my ear, his jokey tweet suggests an underlying profound frustration:
 
My humble suggestion would be that Florida lead again, and use this news to shift from recommending against the vaccine for certain age groups, to recommending against the vaccines for EVERYONE except maybe high-risk. Maybe.
 

What better time than a Friday afternoon for @CDCgov and @US_FDA to let Americans know that the mRNA shots they've been pushing may be causing strokes? Don't worry, we'll make sure the word gets out😉just like we've been doing for months.https://t.co/tnVi1ohicb

— Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhD (@FLSurgeonGen) January 14, 2023

 
I checked the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. None of those corporate media outlets carried the CDC story anywhere on their home pages. I guess to their readers this is not news.
 
🔥 There’s developing new angle to the CDC’s limited hangout, and maybe to the entire covid story from Day One. I’m working as hard as I can to verify this information, but many commenters have asked about it, and it is beginning to look like the international response to the pandemic was a U.S. military operation right from the jump.
 
Critically, the military is not bound to any of the laws about testing vaccines or proving safety or efficacy. Its powers supersede the rules governing private pharmaceutical companies. If, as it is starting to appear, Pfizer and Moderna were acting as military contractors and not private pharma firms, it would explain a WHOLE LOT of the pandemic’s myriad unanswered questions.
 
For example, it would explain why the CDC occasionally approved the vaccines over the negative votes of its own vaccine committee. And how two pharma companies simultaneously invented the same vaccine days after the state of emergency began. And why no other vaccines have been approved (and why the one-shot J&J version was quickly yeeted).
 
Here is one of the FOIA documents. It’s a $2 BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT award to Pfizer from U.S. military procurement in July of 2020.
 

 
This letter reflects a contract award. It says the request for proposal was issued earlier, on June 9th, 2020. The project isn’t for “development” of a vaccine. It is for “large-scale vaccine manufacturing” of a “medical countermeasure.” Which means the vaccine must have already been ready for manufacturing in June. This document strongly suggests the DoD — or somebody — already had the formula, and the military needed someone like Pfizer who could make the vaccine at scale.
 
To fill in the details, we will need to see the Government SOW (the statement of work), and the MCDC RPP 20-11 (request for proposal) dated June 9th, 2020. It might take the House of Representatives to get those documents.
 
Here’s the top of the MCDC’s web page:
 

 
“Prototypes for Medical Countermeasures.” Huh. We already know that Pfizer has successfully defended at least one lawsuit asserting the vaccines were prototypes. It was a prototype. But did the prototype come from Pfizer’s lab or from the DoD’s countermeasures inventory?
 
I don’t want to get too far ahead of this story. There could be a perfectly reasonable explanation, like Operation Warp Speed used the military to handle logistics, and the military grabbed the MCDC as the closest match to what they needed. But the language on this award letter is suspect. For example, the vaccine is clearly considered a “medical countermeasure” — a key MCDC term.
 
In military terms, a countermeasure is generally a specific weapon used to combat a particular known enemy tactic. But in the case of the pandemic, who was the enemy? Mother Nature? Maybe it’s just excessive military-speak, but the letter makes it sound like a traditional military response, not a special ad-hoc project awarding Pfizer a contract to make its own vaccine.
 
In other words, if the vaccine did not already exist, then shouldn’t the letter refer instead to “development of” the vaccine? The state of emergency was declared in March, 2020. That doesn’t leave a lot of time to broker development of a vaccine, award a contract, the vaccine gets developed, and THEN the requests for proposals for large-scale manufacturing could be issued in early June.
 
So what we really need to know is: WHO INVENTED THE MRNA VACCINE PROTOTYPE? Was it a MILITARY prototype, or not? Or maybe did Moderna invent the vaccine under an MCDC countermeasures grant, and then the military recruited Pfizer for its expertise with large-scale drug manufacturing?
 
These questions are critically important, not least because they affect every aspect of vaccine liability. If Pfizer and Moderna were operating under emergency military orders, using the DoD’s prototype vaccine formulae, and were legally bound to help conceal national security secrets like where the vaccines came from and how they work, then the drugmakers’ liability profile is a tiny fraction compared to what it would be if they were the original drugmakers.
 
Now, even if all this is true, there remain legal theories to reach Pfizer and Moderna. For example, they could still be liable as agents and co-conspirators, but they might have some very unusual defenses, like sovereign immunity.
 
It is very hard to sue the military, because of sovereign immunity and because the military is not bound by all the safety and disclosure laws and regulations that private firms — and even the CDC and FDA — are subject to. The military operates above all that.
 
But this is still good news. If the pandemic response really was a military-industrial-pharmaceutical SNAFU, then we may be a whole lot closer to finding out who was really behind the disaster. And it might be very surprising indeed.
 
The truth will out.
 
Unless something develops to derail this theory, I’ll have more to say about it soon.
 
🔥 Are the rats scurrying off the ship? The Washington Post ran a puffy story yesterday headlined, “David Kessler, Biden Official Key to Covid Vaccine Effort, Steps Down.” They even kissed his butt in the headline. Kessler, a former FDA commissioner and dual pediatrician-lawyer, first joined Biden’s campaign, then his transition team, then became the science director of Biden’s covid response team.
 
Yesterday Kessler announced without explanation he’s going back to his cushy academic job at UC San Francisco. I have no special insights, but it sure looks like great timing.
 
🔥 In breaking news from 2020, The Washington Post ran an op-ed penned by TV covid expert, reliable narrative mouthpiece, and contributing editor Leana Wen yesterday, headlined “We are overcounting covid deaths and hospitalizations. That’s a problem.”
 
Oh, she noticed!
 
Wen immediately asked whether U.S. covid death reports include Americans dying FROM covid or dying WITH covid? She concluded it’s mostly “with,” and not “from.” Wen patiently explained, “Two infectious-disease experts I spoke with believe that the number of deaths attributed to covid is far greater than the actual number of people dying from covid.”
 
Where have these experts been for three years?

Read more