Discover more from Euphoric Recall
The Jig is Up
Hey, um. So, about those vaccines...
Euphoric Recall is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
A while back, I wrote a two-part post about the corrupt relationship between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, and the rather absurd situation that’s been playing out in court. (You can read part I here, and part II here, if you’d like.) To briefly summarize for anyone who’s not familiar with the shenanigans:
Pfizer and the FDA were legally required to immediately disclose all data and information regarding the vaccine on the same day the vaccine was authorized for emergency use. I feel like I needn't explain why that's kind of important.
Well, they refused. I mean, I suppose they technically didn't refuse, they just said they’d release all that important stuff in 55 years, which is both perplexing and disconcerting. You’ve just been given the green light to begin using this vaccine on the public, but you’re declining to release key information about it—i.e. clinical trial data, safety profiles, efficacy reports. You know; strictly trivialities. Charlie Mike. Carry on.
(I’ve said this before in regards to Fauci, but I’m still trying to wrap my head around why his acolytes and Democrats pretend like concealment doesn't stink of guilt. If you're declining to disclose something you're legally obligated to, and you don't even bother giving a reason why, you are in effect hiding something, and there are two kinds of people in this world who hide things: tricksters and the guilty.)
A group of doctors fighting for transparency sued the FDA for not releasing the aforementioned items of import. And when they met in court, the FDA, in what can only be described as a screw it, we’re gonna lose anyway stunt, said they wanted another 20 years tacked on. So, at this point it was more or less equivalent to apprising the public that they (the FDA and Pfizer) would follow the law, but there’d be a smidge of a wait. Three-quarters of a century, to be precise.
Things take a long time in court, as we all know, but this week the judge finally told the FDA and Pfizer they could take their 75 years and shove it. He set a new NLT time of 72 hours before they had better damn well release something.
And so they did. The FDA produced 10,000 pages of Pfizer clinical trial documents. My understanding is that more of the digital goods continue to be added to the pile (there's a lot of docs). But it didn't take long before the plaintiffs discovered proof that Pfizer had been lying about “adverse events and side effects.”
It is not a coincidence that just a couple days later, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky made a number of stunning admissions.
The Narrative™️ is beginning to unravel.
What The CDC Director Admitted
What Walensky glibly revealed Friday at the University of Washington (as seen in the clip above; full 56 min. video here) is nothing less than public health malpractice on a scale that just a few years ago would've been inconceivable. It’s criminal.
This is what she’s saying; this is the takeaway:
The CDC director saw a CNN report that the vaccines were “95% effective,” wanted it to be true, and was so hopeful it was true (“this was our ticket out, right? Now we’re done”) that they ran with it as a central part of their messaging without conducting any independent verification, and in so doing, set the stage for the vaccine mandates, the passports, the mass layoffs—all of it.
That Walensky so cavalierly disclosed a bombshell of this magnitude suggests additional, perhaps even more serious revelations are about to drop now that Pfizer and the FDA were forced to document dump.
She’s posturing; positioning herself as a victim before the imminent onslaught of court cases that’ll have class action attorneys putting in 80-hour weeks for the next 10 years. I think the prospect of millions of malpractice lawsuits and possibly even criminal charges might lead someone in Walensky's position to divulge that kind of jaw-dropper almost as a confession of sorts. I also think it's at least partially calculated, especially based on some of the other things she casually let out of the bag during this sit down (not to mention some not so subtle attempts to memory hole a few things and affect ignorance. i.e. - Did you know that we uneducated plebeians have been under the impression that science is always “black and white with no grey,” and that this illusion is of our own doing rather than a side effect of dogmatic public health messaging and always-certain experts well-versed in hubris but allergic to humility and the censoring/discrediting of all information not specifically stamped with the mainstream media’s imprimatur? …'Cause I didn't.)
And believe you me, I'm not the only one who's concluded as much; Aaron Kheriaty, Martin Kulldorff, Peter McCullough, Jay Bhattacharya—a long list of legitimate, non-partisan experts (note: I am not an expert) have too.
Let’s break this down.
“When the CNN feed came that it was 95% effective, the vaccine, so many of us wanted it to be helpful, so many of us wanted to say, ‘Ok this is our ticket out.’”
Based on the context of the full video, when Walensky says “so many of us,” she most likely means her cohort at the CDC and/or Fauci and friends.
“…too little caution and too much optimism for some things that came our way.”
This is upsetting. Too little caution? YOU ARE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CDC! This is not a matter of “dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.” You are forcing millions of Americans to inject something into their bodies knowing full well that at least 2/3 of the country has already had covid either symptomatically or asymptomatically, which means acquired immunity—which in turn means the vaccine is arguably of more risk to these people than the virus itself since it is impossible to know whether or not there will be long term issues/side effects down the road.
And this “too much optimism” part? That’s a roundabout way of saying they were so eager and hopeful that the vaccine worked, that it was “95% effective” — they wanted to believe this so badly — that they impulsively ran with what they saw “WHEN THE CNN FEED CAME.”
Let’s say we not even get into the implications of that last part; let’s say we just ignore it so we don’t even have to try interpreting that in any other way than The Science™️, at least in this case, was a context-free headline from CNN, the world-wide leader in bullshit.
“Nobody said waning when—when, you know, ‘this vaccine’s gonna work’, ‘oh well maybe it’ll wear off,’ nobody said ‘what if the next variant doesn’t—it doesn’t, it’s not as potent against the next variant’”
This is where I almost threw my phone. Literally everything she claims they didn't foresee was anticipated by other experts who were then systematically censored, impugned, and subjected to professional consequences. Robert Malone? Alex Berenson? Martin Kulldorff? Ever heard of ‘em?
People were accused of spreading “misinformation” if they questioned whether or not the vaccine would work against the next variant. And it's truly a shame because they correctly predicted that evolution would force the virus to mutate “at the spike” as a means of circumventing the vaccine.
But even ignoring all that, there was a teensy-weensy reason to assume the vaccine might not be effective against new variants:
IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE FUCKING YEAR WITH THE FLU VACCINE.
This is from THE CDC’S OWN WEBSITE:
Flu viruses are constantly changing, so the vaccine composition is reviewed each year and updated as needed based on which influenza viruses are making people sick, the extent to which those viruses are spreading, and how well the previous season’s vaccine protects against those viruses.
Folks. I have a B.S. in American History and an M.A. in Strategic Public Relations; nobody in my family is a doctor; none of my friends are doctors; I do not watch medical-related shows; and though I can look beside me at this very moment and see books on/about philosophy, psychology, statistics, English literature, anthropology, astrology, economics, advertising, and even theology, I cannot recall ever reading any kind of medical-related book—I’m embarrassed to say I haven’t even read Emperor of All Maladies or Bill Bryson’s The Body: A Guide for Occupants.1
Why am I telling you all this? Because even I know that respiratory viruses survive by drift and immune evasion. The CDC director, though? Negative. I don’t care who you are or what political ideology you subscribe to, if that doesn’t bother you, it could be time to pump the breaks and take a step back from the abyss.
Had civil rights, the Constitution, and bodily autonomy remained inviolable; had the focus been on vaccinating first and foremost the elderly and high-risk, and then making the vaccine available to anyone else who wanted it; had returning to life as it was before so as to minimize the attendant costs of pandemic restrictions been made a priority—the U.S. would be so much better off than we are now.
How many millions of ordinary Americans, people who’ve never wanted anything more than to be left alone, had their lives turned upside down because the CDC director and her retinue very much wanted something to be true?
Their monomaniacal focus on getting every citizen jabbed multiple times was completely unjustified given how much they knew — and how much they didn't know — about the vaccine and its waning efficacy over time and whether or not it prevented transmission in the way they sold it as. Covid is a disease stratified by age and co-morbidities; that has been known since early February of 2020. Ergo, a one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination has always been senseless. It should’ve been recommended based on normative risk-benefit calculations for specific populations.
I am an anachronistic soul. I sometimes feel like I should've been born in another era. I've been told as much more than a few times in all manner of indirect ways. But though I may have a moral sensibility with an air of the ancient, the moral imperative of society remains relatively constant regardless of aeon: Protect the vulnerable; adapt to the moral calculus at play thereafter.
This is what the Great Barrington Declaration called for until Fauci and Collins orchestrated a plan to malign it and dismiss its proponents as “fringe.”
Now, why would they do such a thing? I don’t know; I can only speculate. What I do know is that they tossed the actual response plan — the one determined by decades of research, pandemic war games, and WHO collaborations — out the window and replaced it with divisive policies, incendiary propaganda, and so many lies that it’s unlikely the CDC, FDA, and NIH ever regain the public’s trust.
What has the alternative wrought? An absolute shit show. Crying toddlers being removed from restaurants in NYC by the police because they didn’t have their stupid vaccine “passports”; college campuses across the country achieving 100% vaccination but still imposing the same draconian restrictions and demanding pandemic theatrics continue, obstinacy that’s ushered in bio-surveillance apparatuses erected by contemptible school administrators; ineffective intervention in the lowest risk population for the longest period of time (masking kids); perfectly healthy people forced to submit to an experiment with no long term safety data in order to “protect” themselves from an illness they stand a microscopic chance of succumbing to; lines that often stretched for miles as millions of Americans waited to get tested in spite of already being vaccinated because they'd been led to believe a virus with A 99% SURVIVABILITY RATE is something to live in terror of; and myriad other petty tyrannies with profound societal consequences.
And now we know that all of this shamefully inhumane and borderline totalitarian bull has been
permitted encouraged as part of a “fake it 'til you make it” campaign?
And I am NOT someone who was born with exceptional learning abilities or intelligence, so it's not like I picked this up in high school while reading a textbook and have remembered it ever since because I'm an intellectual prodigy.