The Real Anthony Fauci is now a full-length feature documentary exposing Big Pharma, Big Tech and Big Government.
There's an email signup before you can access the full movie, but once you put in your first name and address, it goes directly to the movie, you don't need to click on a link in an email from them. And you can watch the trailer without signing up.
Available for the next 4 days.
Not a bargain, just conspiracist garbage. I'm not sure why this garbage is allowed on OzBargain
Whatever suits your narrative
Otherwise it’s garbage right 😃
We hear you
one mans trash is another mans treasure!! enjoy buddy lol
No, a real conspiracy would be how a former FDA Commissioner becomes a board member at Pfizer shortly before the pandemic, then successfully lobbies the US government for complete legal indemnity before selling $70+ billion of product developed in lieu of proper scientific method, under false pretences (that it prevents retransmission) as well as using political clout against social media companies to suppress dissenting & questioning opinions online, and then when hard written evidence thereof is obtained (via leaks from Twitter employees) the MSM unilaterally ignores the fact.
Now that's a conspiracy theory!
remember how ppl got those vaccines and then the whole covid thing kinda died down? probably a coincidence hey
It died down in Countries with low vaccination rates too In some cases before countries with high vaccination rate.
That's called natural immunity. The vaccines - even by Pfizer's admission - did not prevent transmission.
@Ham Dragon: omg how hard is context? that's not what they said, they said they did not test for it during the clinical trials. which was done later oh and go figure, it was found to prevent transmission
This or watching Keeping Up With the Kardashians
Lobotomy.
kardashians are more genuine
Good film. For those interested check out the premise below and decide for yourself:
By day, Fauci makes ends meet any way he can — handyman jobs, detailing cars or designing furniture. But nighttime is when Fauci really gets to display his many talents: He's the hot headliner in an all-male revue. Fauci sees potential in a 19-year-old he dubs the Kid, takes the teen under his wing and instructs him in the tricks of the trade. However, Fauci learns there's a downside to the Virologist lifestyle when it threatens his romance with the Kid's sister.
I prefer this premise:
Troubled that he has little access to his children, divorced Anthony Fauci hatches an elaborate plan. He dresses as an older British woman and convinces his ex-wife, Miranda, to hire him as a nanny. "Mrs. Coronavirus" wins over the children and helps Anthony become a better parent — but when both Anthony and his nanny persona must meet different parties at the same restaurant, his secrets may be exposed.
Can’t wait to watch this after the highly anticipated trial of Hunter Biden.
https://barrettsportsmedia.com/2022/10/21/fox-nation-releasi…
It even has Australia’s very highly respected journalist, Miranda Devine! /s
Dog shit on the footpath is free too, should I be posting about that too?
No, but you'd probably rather eat it than admit there are some rather glaring holes in the whole COVID narrative being pushed.
you sound like bleeting sheep
I don't tend to put much stock in the opinions of people who fawn over governments & big corporations, FYI.
not a bargain, trash is free from the bin.
Blah blah
I'm just here to try and spot Slavoz new account……
If anyone want to use an email to not get spammed, you can try the following one that I saw somewhere:
glad to see all the stormfront users coming out of the woodwork to upvote this deal
So Stalin, anyone who doesn't follow your lead is a neo-Nazi?
Standard invocation of Godwin's Law by slackjaws who have nothing else to try & discredit an argument with besides "hurr durr gnatsy!"
Great watch. The truth is exposed.
calm down avi yemini
Sorry but I am not from Yemen
He is a legend
Was he the one convicted of beating his wife?
@Morpheus: @Morpheus I just googled it and his domestic abuse conviction seems to be the reason he was denied entry to the US.
@beefsandwich: Well because he touched the nerves of the pushers of the narrative so hard they tried everything on him to deny access
Just like Assange no different
They will do anything to discredit and put crap on truth talkers
There is an ancient saying
“ they will expel you from 9 villages if you talk the truth!”
It’s no different today!
@Morpheus: Yeah but he also beat up his wife, that's my main point here. Your hero literally bashed the woman he was married to
@beefsandwich: Anything that contradicts the cooker narrative is easily explained away as being misinformation from the shadowy forces behind the conspiracy to discredit their narrative.
@2ndeffort: So you believe the world is all pink and bright ? Everything is great and nothing wrong ? So no one is pulling the strings in the world and they let us be? They left us alone? You really believe we are free? So you are so smart and genius tell us how the world is run? Have you ever seen wars on your doorstep? Have you been in a military coup? Do you know what it means to be taken to military service at 20 years ? Yes it’s the cooker narrative! I’m old enough I have seen many things in my life. I have woken up and I’m proud of it. I don’t like it a bit. It disturbs me. Over 20 years of research and knowledge. It’s there. Once you see you can never go back. You will loose your sleeps. Your life never be the same. It’s not for the faint hearted. Not everyone can handle. Yes we are the cooked. But we are brave, we are awake, we are proud and we are here for freedoms! Let that sink in..We still have hope in humanity..
@beefsandwich: I don’t believe it mate
He doesn’t seem to be a wife basher as he is someone who was up at the front line for freedoms
Just doesn’t add up
@Morpheus: chriso1: Didn't he beat his wife?
Morpheus: No.
chriso1: There's online articles saying he did, it's in the news. It prevented him travelling (to the US (and NZ)).
Morpheus: Those were made up to prevent him from travelling and telling the truth.
chriso1: There's court transcripts.
Morpheus: I just can't believe it, he says stuff about conspiracies and theories I like, it can't be right. Doesn't add up. The only logical explanation is ..it is a conspiracy against him..
Mental gymnastics on display. And all from someone who's apparently very concerned about the right to speak the "truth".
He pleaded guilty to it, would you witnessing him in court do that in person sway your view? Or would it be "Oh he HAS to say that, or the deep state will get him"…
If the claims being made in the book & movie were false, would not AF launch a massive lawsuit against the author and publisher for defamation and loss of income?
Interesting that this has yet to occur…
David Icke made the same argument in the 90s. "I'm saying the Royal Family are literally space lizards, if that was somehow false I would have been sued for it, right?"
I N T E R E S T I N G L Y there wasn't a lawsuit
And yeah, actual space lizards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
That the royal family didnt file suit and bring enormus publicity to Icke is hardly an argument.
RFK cites 108 references in the first chapter of this book. Over a thousand citations over all. To say it is well researched is an understatement.
Fauci family wealth near doubled in 2020-2022. You show me incentive, I'll show you outcome.
Oh I see, in my case the lawsuit wasn't done because it would legitimize a crazy view/conspiracy theory.
But in your case, oh, they clearly have something to hide, which of course proves the crazy view/conspiracy theory to be true.
Got it.
@Crow K: Perhaps the royal family has things to hide? Like ex prince Andrews predilections for (much) younger women? Is that the only secret the royals dont want exposed?
Who knows.
My suggestion is that it is interesting, not that it definitive proof. Proof comes from evidence… like citing over 1000 references across the 12 chapters of the book.
@tight1: It's exactly as interesting as all the other absences of lawsuits (such as David Icke's).
As for the evidence itself, I can't comment as I've not read the book.
The fact it's written by an anti-vaxxer (still pushing the "vaccines cause autism" lie, for instance) makes me spurious of its merit however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#Autism_a…
@Crow K: Clearly your one reference to wikipedia, that unadulterated, uncorruptable bastion of all knowledge worth knowing defeats all RFKs references to scientific studies et al throughout his book.
Well played good sir. Hat tip in your direction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Cui bono?
@tight1: I have no doubt that Robert has lots of references to all sorts of things in his book. I'm equally sure I could make a Word document that linked to 2,000 various articles saying the Moon landing never actually occurred, while we are at it. Quantity over quality doesn't have much going for it when you can scrape the entire internet.
I also linked you to documented proof of his decades plus agenda of pushing the autism vaccines lie.
If you want to be sarcastic about the fact it's on Wikipedia, so be it. I note you're not suggesting he didn't do those things.. just that they're on Wikipedia.
The man has dedicated his life to anti-science conspiracy theories. It's the reason why his YouTube account got removed. Misinformation and lies.
If you can't take that as a 'grain of salt' with the reading, then that's on you. I'm not here to force you to listen to science.
People deserve to be warned of the author's bias, however.
If they read the above and say "I'm spurious about vaccines in the same way and conspiracies are my jam", then more power to them. They made an informed choice and chose to read it. Holding this up as a "science skeptic Just Asking Questions and lots of footnotes everyone, no agenda" is base deception.
@Crow K: Bored of this dialogue.
Watch the movie for free. Research the claims made if youre so adamant that its all lies and publish your findings, with references, contact AF and let him know how you're guaranteed to win in court. Make squillions never need to resort to OB again.
Or dont. Free world (for now) comrade.
@tight1: For someone who was "interested" about a lawsuit's non-existence you certainly get bored quickly.
Yeah, like I said at the start, I'm not presuming to comment on the book or fact check it - but thanks for your offer for me to spend a lot of time doing so.
An offer I shall decline.
I hope you'll find some other non-existent lawsuits in future to regain your general interest in passing.
Life's too short to deny ourselves such decadent pleasures, isn't it?
@Crow K: Just FYI, part two of this well researched documentary has been released. I look forward to you casting dispersion on it without even so much as having seen it… as clear a sign of superior intellect as exists.
@tight1: Why don't you go away and look up what the word "dispersion" means before we go any further on "superior intellect" points (sarcastic or otherwise)?
@Crow K: Well how about that. The correct idiom is "to cast aspersions". Congratulations CR, thanks to you pointing out a mistake and with an open mind, I learnt something from our conversation.
Perhaps you might do similarly if you were to utilise an open mind, and reserve your casting of aspersions until after you had seen a movie / read a book and researched its claims. It's Friday night, do something decadent - grab a glass of red, sit down and watch something interesting and topical. Or don't. Choice is yours.
@tight1: I wondered how you would bake the cake of "came back to have a snarky shot at someone's intelligence, tripped on a grown-up word and shat the bed, now what?". You get marks for owning up to it, but then you lost those marks with the "and now let's make it about you and open minds" BS. Your failings in this thread are the product of your own life, they are not a metaphor for how you wish I would act.
It was a trash move to play the "I look forward to you acting this way" card and you burnt your fingers doing so. And that's where it ends.
Moving on to the substance of your argument:
The "sure, I'm willing to admit he is a decades long anti-vaxxer who lies about the autism/vaccine connection and actively pushes conspiracy theories but you have to read his book and spend your own time fact-checking his research" talking point is a non-starter.
It's same logic of "well, you don't know that that dog turd doesn't actually taste like strawberries until you pick it up and have a nibble".
That's not how any of this works. If you disagree, go away and chomp on some dog turds and prove me wrong.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's frankly ridiculous to expect skeptics to do the legwork to authenticate this sort of nonsense. Some do it as a public service (largely because they are worried at the damage the misinformation does), but I am not that civically minded crow. I explicitly said "I'm not here to make you listen to science" earlier on for the same reason. It's not 'on' me to give a bad faith actor a pass. He can reap what he sows like a grown-up.
For the record: Dude's an anti-science liar and I don't need to spend my limited spare time "testing" garbage theories. I read good books, because life is too short. Enjoy your Friday night.
@Crow K: CR "I'm willing to admit…"
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/straw-man-fallacy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
CR "burden of proof"
Proof offered:
Listing of all citations in chapter one
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/citation_chapter/arbitrar…
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/citation_chapter/arbitrar…
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/citation_chapter/arbitrar…
The above represents the legwork done to back up his claims, in chapter one. You've referenced a wikipedia page.
Here is a usually reliable resource - the British Medical Journal, from October 2020:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
A select quote to whet your appetite "the trials are not focused on answering the questions many might assume they are".
Thanks CR, I shall enjoy my open mind, and my Friday night.
@tight1: Just a moist pile of garbage.
Your 'straw-man' point is:
"well, I never admitted he was a decades-long autism/vaccines proponent. It was just that when you linked to the Wikipedia page that had all the citations of that I just deflected that with an irrelevant, dismissive comment on the nature of Wikipedia and chose not to discuss that."
"I haven't admitted whether he is or not, and that's why it isn't part of an ongoing discussion"
"and now back to whether you are going to investigate and fact check the things that I mentioned"
Plain stupid.
You're such an open-minded individual but we can't possibly countenance the actual proof of his decades long anti-vaxx conspiracy theory denialist history. The author's proven bias is clearly not relevant to the discussion. And so forth. You're open-minded enough to consider all of the things you agree with. Good on you, tiger.
The reason you have these weak thoughts is you are willingly filling your brain with junk. It's the same reason people who eat junk food get fat. Ignorance (wilful or not).
@tight1: Here's some thinking to get you started: Why is it so difficult for you to come to terms with RFK being a proven anti-vaxxer conspiracy-theorist?
It's the elephant in the room, my man.
Why are you so keen to discuss every other aspect to him and his work except the one political movement he's been dedicated to for the fifteen years prior to COVID? Not relevant? Unrelated? Not a thing to consider, good or bad? Not even a "actually he's spent a decade researching vaccines, so of course he is a good person to ask about..", just… crickets. "It's time to discuss something else. Anything else."
Could it be because you know it's crazy anti-science trash and it taints his subsequent Fauci/COVID discussions? If, instead of Wikipedia, I were to link to all the footnotes Wikipedia cited, would that un-Wikipedia-taint the many, many sources? Because I know you love supporting evidence and sources.
Much like the absence of lawsuits that started this discussion, I find your unwillingness to even consider such a line of thought… I N T E R E S T I N G.
Realtalk: You're linking to conspiracy theorist sites and saying things like "This family wealth doubled, follow the money, cui bono etc". I (actually don't) hate to break it to you, but your brain got flushed down a Qanon-rabbithole awhile back. It's too late to help you.
@Crow K: Moist garbage.
Plain stupid
Conspiracy theory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
I have seen the movie about which I'm commenting. I entered with scepticism, due precisely to RFK status as black sheep of Kennedy fam. He makes bold claims. I checked several out,they passed the (see AZT and feeding tubes). Not all claims, like you, I have other things on my plate. Enough claims (data) to make me think.
While the record of the person making the claim is a factor, the data being presented is the determining factor.
Here is some bait. Mass formation psychosis, radically intolerant.
exposing Big Pharma
Uh oh! Hold onto your hats and buckle up for some truth bombs!
When you have the likes of Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb (former FDA commish until just before the pandemic) using his political clout to try & get independent journalists banned from Twitter (thanks Alex Berenson lawsuit) it strikes me that we should be paying even just a little attention to allegations against the pharmaceutical companies, especially those given complete legal indemnity & moreso when it's Pfizer, given their record.
It says "Real" in the title, so it must be.
Any reason why we allow blatant misinformation and fear mongering on "OzBargain"?
So what exactly is the misinformation here?
They are actually showing you what Fauci did during the pandemic - and also prior to it with a failed AIDS medication.
Both times pushing questionable medicine that hadn't been thoroughly tested - I wonder why?
Are you going to debate with me whether or not AIDS was a deadly disease that required urgency? Please go take time to read from real sources rather than being spoon fed bull shit on Facebook
The problem is, when you dont thoroughly test a medicine before you release it - you end up killing more people than you save….
Was it that urgent that it required testing on foster children without proper oversight and likely killed children faster?
You really can't escape misinformation these days, even on bloody OzBargain…..
If anyone's interested in a teardown of Robert F. Kennedy's book (which I'm guessing this doco is based on) I recommend Debunk the Funk with Dr Wilson's "Reviewing The Real Anthony Fauci" series (1 of 7 linked below). Succinct and credible like all of his video's:
By the way, I'm not sure if the doco is actually based on the book but I'm sure it's filled with the same nonsense.
Edit: Confirmed they are one and the same. It's a massive grift, people…don't fall for it.
Hey that's free to watch! Post it as a bargain.
Wheres the bargain here?
Propaganda video does not = bargain
Apart from the fact that this is obviously a crazy, tin foil hat, fake conspiracy theory movie.
Where is the bargain here, has this movie been discounted, what bargain is there to be found here?
This post is purely spam advertising.
You haven’t even watched it yet and your rant here
Stop whinging
You don’t wanna watch don’t
Let others enjoy
And shsssshhh
If stupid people want to believe in their deranged fantasies, have at it. Its a free world. I honestly couldn't care less.
But what does this have anything to do with OzBargain? I stand by my statement, where is the bargain here, whats the deal, how large is the discount, any cashback included, what coupon code should I be using?
I agree with this
But it’s here and presented for ones who might be interested
No use ranting
I am interested in hearing all sides and opinions so I can get an unbiased picture and verify what I can. Blind trust is not helpful to anyone. I have not watched this and I don't understand the vitriol from other people who haven't.
It isn't impossible that Fauci and others have done something you consider unethical. We have been lied to by Pfizer, why can't others be out for personal gain?
You can make what you want of it, but the Pfizer representative from the EU hearing recently admitted that they never tested their vaccine for transmission reduction, which was the major selling point. We were all pressured into getting vaccinated to stop other people who couldn't get the vaccine getting sick, or those who were vulnerable.
Complete information was not provided and therefore cannot constitute informed consent for those who have taken the vaccine. The company has knowingly taken billions in tax payer money from around the world to fund a misleading product where they had no research to back their claims.
I can't find the full hearing video on the EU site, but the relevant bits from the hearing are shown here.
Happy to hear thoughts on this.
He recently admitted? I knew about it during the peak of the pandemic that vaccination does not stop transmission. However, the leaders kept lying to the public for a few weeks/months.
A Pfizer rep admitted, when questioned by a Dutch MEP, that they did not know if their vaccine prevented retransmission at the time of production/rollout.
If these things are so damn safe, why is legal indemnity required? I had to get the shot for work, but made damn certain it wasn't Pfizer/mRNA of any sort.
Sinovax was using the traditional method of vaccine. It's a bit less effective but should do the work
Absolutely, for at risk persons, they should certainly get vaccinated to reduce the risk of adverse affects of c19. I'm not denying any of these vaccines are without any efficacy, just that ordinary healthy folk under 65 have nothing to fear from c19, and that the risk of adverse effect / unintended harm from the medicines created at short notice outweighs the benefit…and that politicians effed up majorly by upending society over something that only adversely affected people in their 70s+.
@Ham Dragon: and yet reports have shown ordinary folk under 65 dying, or experiencing possible long term complications after infection. so that whole it is only the old and sick narrative is bs and the risk from the vaccine still remains rare and when you look at what covid-19 has done and continues to (even in its "mild" state) the benefits continue to outweigh the risks, more so with the new omicron specific boosters.
@subboy: Please yourself and live in fear of a disease with an almost insignificant mortality rate for anyone not suffering comorbidities.
@Ham Dragon: So your saying lockdowns, social distancing and other pharmaceutical measures worked here (especially while Alpha and Delta were doing their thing? might want to tell team freedumb what was achieved with such things. (global data up to this point represents a better picture)
An no I do not live i fear, but I am not blind to its reality
Is it going to kill everyone and harm everyone? no and most likely not, are healthy and young at less risk than someone that is older, unhealthier etc yes, does that mean they are not at risk, not at all.
When you look deep into ongoing findings when it comes to long covid, alongside cardiac issues etc we can see that even a milder variant like omicron can still cause short and long term issues (and this can go beyond health).
Fact is that it remains novel, some short term and many long term realities are not known, but was we can see study after study, many news things are being discovered continue to show that it remains a virus of concern.
My main point though was your statement "that ordinary healthy folk under 65 have nothing to fear" is not accurate and certainly not backed up with any evidence whatsoever.
@subboy: Well yeah, physically preventing people from interacting is a surefire way to stop disease transmission. It was a cruel & misguided policy, but crudely effective, to an extent. As for "long covid", the definition hasn't even been agrees d on, let alone whether it is the cause of symptoms or just an antagonist of existing, underlying conditions, given the relatively low rate of incidence. Take your vitamins, get some sunshine and stay healthy is the best shot you have.
There's some historical precedent here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj…
A world with no indemnity for vaccine manufacturers could very well be a world with no vaccine manufacturers, and thus a world with no vaccines.
So i replied to this copy and paste narrative from you via another comment however will paste my reply here also in response.
so in regards to testing for transmission, that is not what the trials are for, it is about safety and efficacy.
Also, the fact it is was not tested for transmission is not news, they mentioned that in the limitations of their study published 10 Dec 2020 via NEJM. also DR Soumya stated it via twitter 14 Dec 2020 as did Fauci via interview on the same day (could have been the day prior) so yeah not new news, .
The above mentioned study also showed a 95% efficacy against catching it, so you cant spread something you don't have right?
With that said, multiple studies had since been done showing good efficacy against transmission in respect the variant at the time.
So when those things were promoted, they were backed by studies/science and indeed assisted with informed consent and certainly had the research and data to back their claims.
If you interested in how they can normally assess whether a vaccine can prevent transmission, i encourage you to read this Nature article published 19 Feb 2021 (more to the point the heading "Gold Standard") and as you can see via the "Multiple studies" link i shared above, you will see the did exactly that (and more can be found via a pubmed search)
I hope this information helped.
Then I shall copy and paste my reply here too :)
My point is that it was touted as stopping you from being infectious to others when they couldn't have known. You point that out yourself. Many people took it or were convinced they should take it because they believed if they were infected it would stop them from passing it on.
1) I cannot find anything relating to transmission or related limitations within that study. Can you please point me to the part?
2) I cannot find the tweet from @ docotorsoumya as the feed stops at July this year and I cannot scroll back further. Twitter and Google searches are also not yielding this. Same with the Fauci interview. I just get fact checking websites for unrelated Fauci claims.
It may not be new information, but it is quite evident that it was not well communicated and made more confusing by the conflicting information that it prevents transmission. The EU commission it was told to recently were shocked. People hearing about it are shocked. The messaging from the sources we were supposed to trust was inaccurate. This led to support of vaccine mandates. Whether you agree or disagree that is should of happened, people were not adequately informed.
3) Leaving aside that the efficacy of the vaccines and tests has been all over the place throughout the last few years, I agree you can't pass on something you haven't caught. After confused messaging, everyone was on the same page that you could still get sick if vaccinated, but the messaging was still that you wouldn't get other's sick if you were sick.
4) Those studies were after the vaccine roll out, after the vaccines were promoted inaccurately. You can't retroactively use data from studies after the vaccine rollout to justify the initial misinformation to garner uptake. We are only okay with what has happened because right now the data shows there was not any detrimental affects. If it were the opposite, we would not have been okay with the way the vaccines were rolled out and promoted/enforced.
5) Thank you for the information on what is "Gold Standard" practice. This makes sense. It also supports the fact that the companies could not have known about transmission rates.
Irrelevant of the actualities of how the vaccine worked, it was sold under misleading advertising to the Nations and to individuals.
so only biden and some news reporters used the word "stop". no vaccine is 100% hence why any scientist used the words "prevent" as that matches reality, however as mentioned before, the trial study showed a 95% efficacy against infection so again you cant be infectious if you are not infected, and multiple studies done that found that it reduced both transmission and virial loads so would be less likely to pass it on and for a shorter period compared to someone who was not vaccinated.
However with that said, if you look at the dates where they promoted the prevention of transmission and align that with the list of studies you will find it was said after a study showed that reality.
From here it may be easier to reply using each number you used to make it easier (hopefully)
in the research summary picture
The interview can be found on youtube and it was actually a few days prior sorry (December 11)
as for the rest of 2. i mentioned that before regarding lining up study publication dates and claims/statements
also to note that if the EU commission as shocked and saw that as new information (along with others) all that shows is that they did not read the studies.
I covered that before in respect to viral loads and transmission, however (again other than biden and some reporters) I had only heard the messaging that you are less likely to (and in turn that was backed by the studies) which made sense with it not being a cure and all and understanding breakthrough infections along with a basic understanding of how the immune system responds to the vaccine and in turn the virus.
this in turn goes with what Dr Soumya stated that they hope that "transmission is cut as well, but as for now we don't have the evidence to prove that. So it's really important that everyone who gets the vaccine continues to take procurations"
Remembering that the main purpose of the vaccine is to prevent serious illness or death from the disease, and as there was a novel virus, many deaths due to the virus, and they had been able to establish safety and efficacy during the trials it made sense to be roll it out in order to protect (especially the immune-compromised, elderly etc) people as soon as possible while continuing to monitor/study this kind of data after.
And you would have seen via that nature article that transmission studies were ready to go due to data/tests collected from early as April 2020 (PANTHER), so once the vaccine was rolled out they were able do/redo more test and as such publish their results by 22 Feb 2021 alongside others soon after including pfizer.
covered above
and not it was not sold misleadingly, unfortunately there are misinformation creators and spreaders who twist reality, timelines, context and whatever else they can do to promote that narrative. but as shown if you look deeper you will see what was promoted was accurate at the time when it came to the vaccine first being rolled out and in the most part since.
@subboy: Fauci: The vaccinated can be as infectious as the unvaccinated.
Fauci: Criticizing me is critizing science.
@gto21: so he said that in August last year in regards to same level of virus in their nasal pharynx as the unvaccinated.
In context he also stated Almost invariably they (vaccinated) get minimal symptoms or no symptoms at all" whilst promoting not only the vaccine but also the use of masks, along with delta being dominant and more breakthrough cases had been seen, however with that said it was also noted at the time that the CDC had stated that fewer than 0.1% of the 164 million vaccinated Americans had been infected with the virus, and only 0.001% of the vaccinated had died.
Along with that reality was the studies as I mentioned in my previous post showing that the viral loads were reduced quicker if you were vaccinated vs unvaccinated, which in turn reflects the reality that at that time if you did get infected there was still a possible time period where you could be spreading the virus as a vaccinated person, and it is good that it had been said then and promoted prior due to some vaccinated folk thinking that once they had it, it was all good because they were vaccinated, not taking into account the reality of breakthrough infections, hence why for a long period non-pharmaceutical measures have been in place and promoted for all.
@gto21: that in itself is another conspiracy theory, again read the figures from the cdc 0.1% so those theories were not backed with a reality other than breakthrough infections happen (which comes with all vaccines) so that is common sense based on reality, not a conspiracy theory lol apparently the CT's suggested a lot worse early on and they were wrong as usual if that was the case. (i could be nasty and ask you to show me exactly when the CT's said it, and what it is they said, but I know you wont be able to provide evidence so I will let you off this time)
@subboy: So early on they told you breakthrough infection can happen among the vaccinated? How early? After most of the population got vaccinated? 😂
@gto21: of course as mentioned in the study i linked in one of my above comments 95% efficacy against catching it, so that 5% shows breakthrough infections. so that was prior to rollout. and further studies also showed breakthrough infections, because (as mentioned before) no vaccine has been 100% against infection, again though not the purpose of the vaccines
@gto21: sorry, missed the second part, so whilst close to what he said, in context with was due to republicans coming at him regarding their lab leak theories as well as his change of stance when it came to recommending the use and effectiveness of masks earlier when the pandemic started vs later. and it was an interview (cant remember the news channel) where his reply to that situation was something close to “attacks on me are attacks on science, everything i spoke about consistently from the start, have been based on science”
Fauci: ‘The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.’
Fauci’s agency admits it funded gain-of-function work in Wuhan.
😅
@Morpheus: exactly