Regarding public health coverage, 60 Minutes ain't what it used to be

The Swine Flu Fraud of 1976 - (60 Minutes with Mike Wallace) - YouTube

Mike Wallace did a superb job of exposing the fraud and criminality of CDC and other government agents regarding Swine Flu. Those were the days when 60 Minutes did actually practice investigate journalism.

What this shows about Swine Flu in 1976 is being repeated on a massive scale with the Scamdemic today. Apparently many of us learned nothing at all from Wallace's fine job.

Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

 

What actual data do you have to offer from credible sources that the current covid pandemic that has killed over 5 million to date is comparable to swine flu?

 

Oh Natty, you are so well indoctrinated! I'm sure Sleepy Joe will give you some sort of Commendation Medal and a pat on the back for your achievements.

Watch the video if you dare. It's only about 15 minutes long.

OAN showed it in its entirety last evening. Funny that a fairly new news outlet would replay a segment from a competing news outlet done almost 50 years ago.

Being so well indoctrinated today by Fauci & Friends, I'm betting you have no intention of watching good investigative journalism from 1976.

 

Natty asked you what documentation do you have that the current pandemic, that has killed over 5 million, is comparable to swine flu, not what happened 50 years ago.

 

Your hyper-partisan whinging fails to avoid the pertinent question: "What actual data do you have to offer from credible sources that the current Covid pandemic that has killed over 5 million to date is comparable to swine flu?"

It appears to be your premise that a surfeit of caution by the CDC of 47 years ago is repeated in the commission of today, and is applicable to public health experts, to epidemiologists, and to virologists worldwide, as if 45 years of medical, scientific progress has not occurred, and that the reality of over 5 million dead from Covid is an inconvenient irrelevancy.

Try not to get upset, but that is woefully irrational from my perspective.

 

You and Natty apparently do not understand that common sense does not require "documentation" as you and he express it here.

Maybe you both are very young, I don't know.

The older and more cynical amongst us learned from Mike Wallace's good work that the government and pharma lied through their teeth about the Swine Flu Scam in 1976. Common sense would demand that Wallace's work was a strong demonstration of the facts that made it so.

Some humans are able to learn from the past, and apply it to current times. Some understand that those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat the mistakes.

Some are not able to connect those dots. That's a personal problem. I understand what Wallace exposed, and easily see a very similar, almost identical situation in today's Scamdemic.

If y'all are unable to connect the dots, or make comparisons, that's OK. Life goes on.

 

OK, now I see what you're trying to say.

I should have specified earlier that what I'm judging in this thread is just a wee bit about facts, but much more about HUMAN BEHAVIOR, a hobby of mine for years.

And here's the comparison. The head of CDC that Wallace interviewed behaved then EXACTLY as Fauci has been behaving since. He bluffed, deceived, and took actions that were dishonest. They relied upon instilling fear and anxiety in the masses over the Swine Flu as Anthony has done with the Phantom Virus today. Not mirror images because of certain details, but the general themes and tactics were the same then as they are now.

 

The level of deadliness of the pandemic has no bearing on the level of government corruption, which is what this thread is about. The CDC funds much of its research with 'donations' (by funneling them through the CDCF) from the very pharmaceutical corporations whose product sales depend on the results of that research. Its a huge and blatant conflict of interest, given that those donations will surely dry up if the CDC finds that those products are unnecessary or dangerous. Compounded by the tendency for the CDC heads to be ex-executives of these companies and vice versa, there is no reason I can think of to trust anything the CDC 'finds' regarding pharmaceutical products.

Here's how the CDCF helps the CDC get big pharma money to fund research regarding those same big pharma products-

"According to the CDC Foundation, a "nonprofit organization that forges partnerships between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and private and philanthropic sectors", CDCF forges "traditional philanthropic donor/grantee relationships, collaborative alliances between CDC and a single private-sector organization, broad multi-partner initiatives that may include more than one funding stream, and research collaborations to advance public health."
...
"CDC must evaluate when a gift offered by a private entity, e.g., company, foundation, enterprise, etc., may create a conflict of interest or may be from a prohibited source. A prohibited source is any individual or entity that is seeking official action by CDC; does business or seeks to do business with CDC; conducts activities regulated by CDC; has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of an employee’s official duties; benefits from work performed by CDC, such that they can use it to promote their business; or is an organization where a majority of its members are described in Section VI. I. 2 (5 C.F.R. Section 2635.203(d)). The fact that a potential donor is a prohibited source does not necessarily mean that a proposed gift may not be accepted; only that it must be carefully evaluated for possible conflicts of interest."
Public-Private Partnerships and Conflict of Interest Guidelines | CDC Foundation

Here's some highlights of the CDC's past corruption (pasted from another thread, thus possibly a few bits of out of context phrasing)

"We can however look at how it has handled such things in the past. If you want the long version, its here: huntoon.pdf (jpands.org) For a short version, here's some highlights:

this regarding an article in the BMJ-
"The CDC accepts millions of dollars in “conditional funding” from entities, including pharmaceutical corporations. Conditional donations are donations that are specifically earmarked for specific projects.3 In 2012, for example, Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for CDC’s efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C….The CDC issued guidelines in August 2012 recommending expanded (cohort) screening of everyone born from 1945 to 1965 for hepatitis C virus…. Industry has donated [more than $26 million] to the coalition [CDC’s Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition] through the CDC Foundation since 2010.3 According to a BMJ article, “Conflict of interest forms filed by the 34 members of the external working group that wrote and reviewed the new CDC recommendation in 2012 show that nine had financial ties to the manufacturers.”3 The CDC Foundation also accepted conditional funding from Roche for the Take 3 flu campaign.3 CDC subsequently posted a recommendation on its website recommending influenza antiviral drugs (e.g. oseltamivir). It cited studies in support of its recommendation, including one which CDC described as an independent study. “However, the study was sponsored by Roche, and all four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir and Gilead holds the patent).”3 In 2015, the president and chief executive of the Institute for Family Health in New York, Neil Calman, commented: Industry funding undermines trust and introduces a bias in the presentation of results and treatment recommendations that is deplorable for a government agency. If the allegations of industry funding and influence are true, we will have to look very carefully at recommendations we are following now and those made in the future by the CDC…. Industry claims their scientific methodology ensures their studies are unbiased—just as the CDC claims money doesn’t affect their recommendations. Yet multiple studies clearly—and repeatedly—show that who sponsors a study, or issues a guideline, makes a difference.3"
3. Lenzer J. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Protecting the private good? BMJ 2015;350:h2362. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2362. Available at:
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362. Accessed Aug 14, 2020.

This regarding an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association summarizing finding from the OIG-
"An article summarizing the OIG’s findings concerning CDC’s Ethics Program, published in JAMA in 2010, reported:15 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 25 Number 3 Fall 2020 69 "The US Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) failed to identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest among its 2007 advisory committee members more than half the time, according to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Office of the Inspector General (OIG)…. 97% of the 212 disclosure forms the agency certified in 2007 contained at least 1 omission, the report noted…. The CDC failed to identify potential conflicts on 124 individuals (58%) with certified forms…. Even when a potential conflict of interest was identified, the agency often did not take the steps necessary to address it. Nearly one-third (67 persons) of the 212 certified individuals had conflicts the CDC identified but failed to resolve.15 The detailed 47-page OIG report is both shocking and very disturbing.16 Its Findings included: For almost all special Government employees, CDC did not ensure that financial disclosure forms were complete in 2007…. CDC did not identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest for 64 percent of special Government employees in 2007…. CDC did not ensure that 41 percent of special Government employees received required ethics training in 2007…. Fifteen percent of special Government employees did not comply with ethics requirements during committee meetings in 2007…. 3 percent of SGEs voted on particular matters when their waivers prohibited such participation. Four SGEs both participated in committee meetings without current, certified OGE Forms 450 on file and voted on particular matters when their waivers prohibited such participation.16 The OIG report concluded by stating: “We found that CDC had a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics program for SGEs. That is, CDC and its SGEs did not comply with ethics requirements in 2007.”16
15. Kuehn BM. Office of Inspector General: CDC lax in policing advisor’s conflicts of interest. JAMA 2010;303(5):412. Available at:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/185312. Accessed Aug 14, 2020.
16. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. CDC’s Ethics Program for Special Government Employees on Federal Advisory Committees; December 2009. Available at:
CDC's Ethics Program for Special Government Employees on Federal Advisory Committees (hhs.gov). Accessed Aug 14, 2020"

 

I'll take it that you are not straining to contrive some sort of comparability between the swine flu of 1976 and the covid pandemic of today that has killed over 5 million.

Rather, your ideological dogma requires you to malign Dr Fauci.

 

I know a scientist from a scam artist, a physician from a snakeoil salesman.

The similarity between the Swine Flu event and the Covid event is that they were both contrived by Pharma and CDC.

What is different about them is that the perps really screwed up in 1976 and were exposed by mainstream media, while the current Plandemic was excellently planned and executed, and mainstream media is an essential part of the deception.

 

I can't subscribe to such paranoid, crackpot conspiracy fantasies.

 

...because your powers of perception tend toward the weak side. The Swine Flu was a scam and covid is a scam. Government behavior in each case was virtually identical--fraud, deception and heavy propaganda.

The first one failed, as Mike Wallace illustrated. The second one succeeded. Did the perps learn their lessons? It appears so.

 

You are incapable of grasping the fact that such a notion is delusional.

Even the crackpots who fantasize that the Loser won the 2020 presidential election accept his abandoning his fake pretense that the pandemic was not serious and admitting to the reality:

Trump Knew Seriousness Of The Coronavirus Early On

Trump finally admits COVID-19 is a serious problem

Trump recommends COVID-19 vaccine, even to 'people that don't want to get it'

Trump says he got Covid vaccine booster shot,
tells fans not to boo him for it

​

​

 

You are incapable of confronting the fact that we were all deceived, yourself included.

Some of us have come to our senses, but you haven't. Delusion is the only explanation for why an individual would believe known liars like Pfizer and Pfauci.

 

Speak for yourself, if you can trust yourself to tell the truth.

The vast majority of Americans who have respected the expertise of public health professionals and gotten vaccinated were not deceived or deluded.

 

There is nothing admirable about endangering others and sacrificing one's health just because one has swallowed the paranoidal, crackpot ideological dogma that some nutjobs aew spouting.

An anti-vax podcaster has reportedly contracted COVID-19 and now is hospitalized on a ventilator

​

Kuzma contracted the virus at a right-wing event earlier this month, according to his podcast network...

Anti-vax podcaster Doug Kuzma has contracted the coronavirus and is now hooked up to a ventilator at a Virginia hospital, according to attorney Lin Wood and his podcast network...

Wood, who pushed false claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged against former President Donald Trump and who has ties to the QAnon conspiracy theory movement, said in a Telegram message on Friday that Kuzma contracted COVID-19 after attending the right-wing "ReAwaken America" event in Dallas earlier this month...

The Dallas event ran from December 9 to 11 and was part of a national tour of right-wing speakers like MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, according to a list of headliners posted online. At the event, the speakers pushed baseless claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and spread misinformation about the coronavirus.

"Doug has taken a turn for the worse," Wood wrote. "His lungs are not responding to treatment."

Since vaccines became available to the public, a slew of other conservative podcasters and radio hosts who've expressed anti-vaccine sentiments have contracted the coronavirus. At least seven of them died this year.

https://news.yahoo.com/anti-vax-podcaster-reportedly-contracted-144011951.html

At least 7 conservative radio hosts and anti-mask advocates have died from COVID-19 after bashing the vaccines
https://www.businessinsider.com/con...21-9?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=yahoo.com


"It’s A Real Lifesaver!"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbr...ent-of-covid-19-vaccines-yet/?sh=621a34de4cf6​

 

Sure Natty, and Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman.

 

One similarity I noted is that when CBS's Mike Wallace reported this, Gerald Ford was president, a Republican who took over after Nixon resigned and Watergate. If Trump had remained president we probably would have seen more "investigative" journalism. In fact, during the 2020 campaign Democrats repeatedly claimed the vaccine was being rushed and if Trump tells Americans to get vaccinated, don't listen to him. Of course, now that Biden is president, investigative journalism is not done by the media.

 

It has been decades since investigative journalism has been done by the mainstream media.

Sharyl Attkisson is about the only one doing it today, and she barely qualifies as mainstream media. To a certain extent today, Tucker and several others might be included in that.

Alternative media is doing the investigative work these days, and that's why they are censored so strongly by the social media.

 

Aint it the truth