Has Rochelle Walensky Lied to Congress Multiple Times? If So, It’s a Potentially Fatal Breach of Trust

by Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Popular Rationalism, reposted with permission

(Apr. 22, 2023) — In 2020, the world experienced a major crisis, which fortunately did not pose a significant threat to children, as it turned out to be comparable to seasonal “influenza disease” in severity. Despite the closing of schools, there was no proof that this action decreased transmission in the surrounding community.

Rochelle Walensky’s recent statements to Congress are problematic. She told Congress, for example, that the public expects the CDC to be more responsive when the next epidemic or pandemic starts. Actually, many of us expect them to fail again, and many hope for them to stand down altogether. She does not speak for those of us who hope that the CDC stays out of the way and allows real doctors to deal with the medical conditions. Their misuse of their inflated budget led to lockdowns and destroyed over 500,000 small businesses – permanently.

There are some major concerns about Rochelle Walensky’s stated approach to vaccine recommendations. She does not appear to take into account the potential harms of vaccines, and CDC has published papers in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report – without peer review. To say the papers they publish in MMWR are questionable is being generous.

Recently, her statement that “vaccinated people do not carry the virus they do not get sick” was challenged by Congress and she claimed that it was accurate at the time, though the data never supported it. Her statement that all evidence showed vaccinated people do not transmit the virus was inaccurate. (See Children’s Health Defense Article: Did CDC Director Intentionally Lie to Congress? Or Is She Just That Misinformed?)

The fact is that Rochelle Walensky, director of the CDC, may be lying to Congress about her knowledge of public health and vaccines. She was a proponent of school closures, and the masking of young kids, and yet she based her position on these with no randomized control trials addressing these interventions. It may even be that she has not fully grasped the significant and central importance of randomized control trials.

From Children’s Health Defense:

“Another astonishing falsehood made by Walensky was her response to Congressman Clyde’s question about the Cochrane review which found that wearing face masks in the community ‘probably makes little to no difference’ in preventing viral transmission.

Walensky enthusiastically stated:

‘I think its notable, that the Editor-in-Chief of Cochrane, actually said that the summary of that review was [stumble] she retracted the summary of that review and said that it was inaccurate.’

However, the summary of the review was not retracted, nor have the authors of the review changed the language in the summary.”

Her claim that the Cochrane Review on masking was retracted, made in her statement to Congress, was inaccurate, misleading, and carried forward by the press.

Her recent comments show that she does not acknowledge there is genuine uncertainty in the medical community over whether a treatment, intervention, or vaccine will be beneficial. By presuming efficacy, this means that she does not appear to understand the concept of equipoise in clinical trials. (Another nod to Vinay Prasad for this call-out).

Walensky’s public, sworn statements have also revealed that she is grossly incompetent, and she has demonstrated a lack of understanding of evidence appraisal. Last year, she warned of a “pandemic of the vaccinated”, ignoring natural immunity until the bitter end.

Mandates are unjustified and CDC policies restrict children and overestimate children’s deaths. Compulsion does not benefit the vaccinated person and the benefit does not outweigh autonomy when making healthcare decisions. Furthermore, the CDC should lose trust as its policies are unjustified and not thought through. This is evidenced by a paper analyzing the policy’s success that was published in the CDC’s journal, without peer review.

The advent of Operation Warp Speed during this critical period allowed for the expedited development of a vaccine. The trials were fraught with shortcuts. Vinay Prasad has pointed out repeatedly that the original trials for Pfizer and Moderna did not possess the capacity to swab the contacts of participants. Prasad advocates for randomly assigning kits to people for them to swab their family members as a viable opportunity to acquire accurate data. Furthermore, he thinks the primary endpoint of the study could have been overall survival in nursing home patients. Combined with Dr. Sin Lee and my messages on the need for the use of Sanger sequencing of clinical samples from patients to clinched accuracy into the data on efficacy would have been important. We had none of that.

It’s not as though we don’t have the tools to know the answers to CDC’s inaccurate and misleading claims.

Read the rest here.