When public hears 'safe and effective' they hear '100% safe and effective' - Congressman Brad Wenstrup
Story in a flash:
- Directors from the FDA, CDC, and HRSA were called to testify before a congressional panel on the rushed approval process for the mRNA injections used as COVID vaccines and were grilled on the message they put out to the public and on its timing.
- Congressmen succeeded in forcing public health officials to admit that “safe and effective” doesn't mean “completely safe and effective” despite the public widely believing it means just that.
- During their questioning, the director of the FDA was also compelled to admit that he rushed the approval process and removed those who attempted to keep to a more traditional timetable.
Softballs
Public health officials were called to testify before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. Just the News described most members of the House panel, even Republicans, as going “surprisingly easy” on the public health officials, despite the opportunity to pin them down on their controversial decision-making processes:
GOP members went surprisingly easy on the FDA's Peter Marks, CDC's Daniel Jernigan and Health Resources and Services Administration's Reed Grimes, speaking more often in terms of disappointment than denunciation.
They rarely disputed the feds' claims about COVID-19 vaccines even when officials spoke in the language of absolutes, such as saying the jabs "prevent" rather than mitigate hospitalization and death, and accepted their statistics at face value. [Emphases added.]
Those absolutes have been posted on a congressional website, including this statement to the committee from Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, declaring the mRNA injections to be safe and effective in the conclusion of his testimony:
COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe. COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be effective. They are supported by the best available scientific data; they underwent FDA’s rigorous regulatory authorization and approval processes; and their safety over time is closely monitored. [Emphases added.]
Likewise, Dr. Daniel Jernigan, Director of the CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, came to the same conclusion in his posted remarks:
The conclusions from the data collected as part of this historic effort is [sic] clear—COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. [Emphases added.]
Congressional interrogators
As noted by Just the News, Subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup, R-Oh, was an exception. Together with questioning from House Freedom Caucus member Michael Cloud, R-Tx, Wenstrup was able to pin down the misleading nature of Marks' and Jernigan's safety and efficacy claims:
Dr. Marks: The American public can rest assured that vaccines that are authorized or approved are safe and effective.
Dr. Jernigan: The science shows that we should all have confidence that COVID-19 vaccines are both safe and effective.
. . .
Congressman Cloud: Can you still get COVID after getting the COVID-19 vaccine?
Dr. Marks: Yes.
Dr. Jernigan: Yes.
Congressman Cloud: Does it prevent you from transmitting it?
Dr. Marks: It does not absolutely prevent transmission.
. . .
Congressman Wenstrup: Is any pharmaceutical 100% safe?
Dr. Marks: No pharmaceutical is a hundred percent safe.
Dr. Jernigan: As clinicians we all recognize that no medical intervention is risk free.
Congressman Wenstrup: When you say 'safe and effective,' that's relative in your mind, but it's not to the person at home. They hear '100% safe and 100% effective'. That's what they hear. This is why words matter . . . in essence that's what people heard and are sill hearing today. We've got to change that.
‘Interesting timing’ allowed mandates
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky, was another congressman who used his allocated interrogation time to draw an admission from the public health officials appearing before the committee. He focused on Marks' rushing the timing of the vaccine to predate coming mandates, instead of following the normal timetable for checking vaccine safety and efficacy:
Comer … got Marks to acknowledge the "interesting timing" of the military mandating COVID vaccines just four days after the approval deadline Marks pushed on his staff ... [Emphases added.]
X user Chief Nerd transcribed the exchange in which Marks admitted to the connection between his office's approval of the mRNA injections and the legality of mandating them, as well as the fact that the approval came the day before the military mandate:
Dr. Marks: "There was an acknowledgement that an approval could allow vaccine mandates to occur...Once you have a licensed vaccine, a mandate could be placed."
Congressman Comer: "Did you express your desire to approve the vaccine by August 20th?"
Dr. Marks: "I did."
Congressman Comer: "And it was ultimately approved on August 23rd, correct?"
Dr. Marks: "Correct."
Congressman Comer: "Just for the record, the military mandate was issued on the 24th. That is interesting timing."
FDA's way or the highway
Just the News noted that Marks not only pushed his “approval deadline” on his staff but that the “top two vaccine officials [on his staff], Marion Gruber and Philip Krause, left shortly after” the approval, declining to put the blame on his superiors:
Marks … said he didn't remove Gruber and Krause from the Pfizer approval process because he was told to, but because they refused his review timeline out of concern "about the workload."
The FDA "needed to move as rapidly as possible" amid a summer 2021 spike in COVID deaths, and approval would "help Americans feel more comfortable getting vaccinated," Marks said. [Emphases added.]
Comer forced Marks to testify on the connection between the removal of members of the approval committee and their refusal to accelerate the approval process.
Congressman Comer: Did anyone instruct you or is this just a decision you made on your own [to rush approval]?
Dr. Marks: This was a decision that I had made on my own.
Congressman Comer: So why were you pressuring the doctors and then removing them from the approval process when they disagreed?
Dr. Marks: The approval process was one that was needed to move as rapidly as possible. [Emphases added.]
'I have a PhD in recognizing bullsh*t … Dr. Marks, You knew about myocarditis'
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga, chose to focus on the details of both the need, or lack thereof, for the vaccines, particularly in children, the types of injuries suffered from the mRNA injections, and the failure of the government to properly compensate the vaccine injured, as summarized by Just the News:
Greene … forcefully challenged the feds' claims, including Jernigan's assertion that "every serious adverse event" reported in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System "is followed up."
"I'm not a doctor but I have a PhD in recognizing bullsh*t when I hear it," the fiery Greene said in a five-minute tirade 90 minutes into the previously sedate hearing.
"Everyone" knew early that obesity, diabetes and advanced age were the most relevant COVID risk factors, Greene said, accusing Marks of rushing vaccine approval for young people despite knowing their higher risk for heart inflammation and their "practically zero risk" from COVID. [Emphases added.]
Check back for the next installment of our series of drug side effects and see our previous coverage of COVID and the mRNA injections:
- Tragedy: 8-year-old featured in COVID propaganda video dies after cardiac arrest
- Frontline Facts: Are doctors paid per vaccine jab?
- ''I never got the credit I deserved on COVID' — Trump stands by vaccine in interview with vaccine victim Megyn Kelly
- Frontline Fact: Did Trump allow states to decide on lockdowns?
- Despite government claims, myocarditis found not temporary after COVID mRNA injection
- Neurological complications, turbo cancers after COVID shot
- Government withholds vaccination status for 9-year-old Israeli girl dead from cardiac arrest during rocket siren
- Moderna using celebrity reports of side effects to monitor victims rather than warn others?
