During a House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus hearing Monday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) questioned Dr. Fauci on a statement on vaccine requirements he made during a recorded interview.
“It’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.” Official Quote by Anthony Stephen Fauci
Note: When Fauci says proven, he is clearly referring to the science behind psychological manipulating the public. He says he is a man of science, so people should hold him to that.
Just a few years ago Fauci was crowning himself as the "King of Science". This includes the famous quote where he stated that if you disagree with him, you are disagreeing with science.
It might be your first time hearing these shocking comments by Fauci, but this is him behind the mask.
So what does it mean for Australia?
Undoubtedly these same types of scientific types of people that rise to the top of bureaucratic government positions all over the world. I suspect that this is because most people they grow up in school and they think science is easy. Students just repeat what is in the textbook and they score high marks because they can regurgitate facts and memorise a formula. By the way if you didn't realise, that is not real science and just shows how poorly structured the current educational system is as it emphasises the regurgitation of facts.
People forget the Therapeutic Goods Administration is not an independent organisation. There is nothing special about the people inside that organisation, maybe they learned a few extra years of some topic at university and I hope they at least are at a standard to which they have written a thesis which is basically a long essay on a specialised topic. Some thesis papers are absolutely garbage in my opinion. But most importantly it reveals that these types of people are just ordinary people. They are just government workers to be more specific. They know very little and more critically they especially know nothing about a new pandemic. They know nothing more than the average citizen. Governments should not be given the right to control how people behave in a pandemic.
The problem is this lack of knowledge is not just constrained to scientists, but humans in general. I have met many barristers and solicitors, even former judges. Believe it or not sometimes cannot even recall the facts of a case I mention or recall key legislation in their field of expertise after a bit of uhm and ahing. If you told me if I remembered some facts of an obscure case I would probably tell you, "I am not sure myself, I believe it was something involving some type of snail-like object in the bottle, but I would not commit myself to that". However, you will often notice that because of the immunity granted to bureaucrats that they will not be frank and honest with you about what they don't know. This is why you cannot trust the government.
This is why it is my opinion that the public should focus on replacing government with uncensored artificial intelligence. People should not be scared of it. This is the reality that faces us and I don't see why the public puts so much emphasis on the government to protect its citizens when it is basically not well equipped to do any such thing. For example, the government cannot represent the people properly because the number of representatives does not account for the growth in the population. Even if representation somehow worked at the time when the Constitution was written, it clearly no longer functions as it was intended to. Has the number of senators and representatives increased by 7x in line with population growth? No it has not, representation has gone backwards to a tune of 7x. Even if you believed the government worked for the good of the people, you cannot deny that the representation has been watered down so much. I am not saying that would fix the issues immediately as there are core problems with the existence of government.
If it were a real pandemic then everyone would be clamouring to get vaccinated (provided that vaccine worked and did not have an even higher death rate than the disease it was preventing) and those foolish people who remain unvaccinated, pardon my words, will be left to rely on their natural immunity. I am sure many of the people within the anti-vax movement understand this core principle.
Bill Gates is a kind of famous oracle and he states that another type of pandemic will happen again. Time and time again his predictions/wisdom ironically seems to come true. Apparently the cusp of another Bird Flu Pandemic is here.
Ask yourself: Are you going to make the same choices next time?
Would you honestly take another experimental bird flu vaccine?
@Ughhh:
sbm aren't the only ones out there writing hit pieces on real scientists like Exley. There are many other sites affiliated with so called "skeptics" groups. Regardless of where you "visited" to get the slanted view you have of Claire Dwoskin, the end result is the same.
See, framing the question incorrectly as usual in order the slant the response.
Yes, Dwoskin through CMSRI has funded some of Exley's work in the past. You say they have a "specific agenda". Well, lay out that "agenda" for us, don't leave us guessing. I doubt you will, because of the trolling nature of the questions.
Here's my "guess" though. Dwoskin, like most parents who now question vaccines or other poisons in general, probably has personal experience of adverse consequences affecting someone close in her life, possible a child, grandchild, sibling or other family members. If this is so, & if Dwoskin wasn't convinced the authorities are properly, independently, objectively answering questions, & her being in a position to do something about it, may have put money to research what the authorities won't fund.
Logically think about it. hypothetical example; do vaccines cause autism? Say Dwoskin wanted to know if that was the case because she noticed her infant regress after the dtap or mmr vaccine. Say she funds research to look at that. Do you really think her "agenda" would be to prove she was right? Why? Wouldn't that confirm to her that it was her fault for giving her infant the shots? Who would want that guilt? Nobody. She would have seen the government authorities being adamant vaccines don't cause autism, but she isn't convinced because there is a lot out there now about how those studies are fraudulent. She just wants the truth & is in a position to contribute. She would hope the independent science she funds provides the same result as the authorities. This would reassure her. Does CSMRI have anything to benefit? Are they selling anything? Do they have patents? Pseudo-skeptics have suggested it's all about the "grift". Reaping in the millions of dollars of donations from desperate parents. Not a convincing argument in the least. I can absolutely guarantee you that if CSMRI had that sort of funding, the first thing they would of done would of been to set Exley up with his own lab in order for him to continue his work.
On the other hand, are organisations like the CDC "non-neutral", even though they hold patents for vaccines, make money through licenses & buy lots from pharma in a circular type of economy, as well as having a purpose to drive vaccine uptake, while at the same time making sure they are "safe"?
So, your insinuations are nothing more than ridiculous attempts to undermine truly independent research.