Anonymous #4 21h

It’s a type of subtle only the government could manage, but getting caught up in this case while far more dangerous messages and moves are being made around public health is not a good idea.

0

Anonymous #6 20h

Look it up it’s real

5

Anonymous #4 20h

Yea ur being so silly here. The vaccines were marketed as completely safe and that they would prevent transmission, none of which were true.

-2

Anonymous #3 20h

i'm not disputing whether or not it's real yet I just want to know what specific source op got this from

25

Anonymous #6 20h

Fair, I’m just saying you could easily look it up. But to answer your question the texts were from his government issued phone and it’s been exposed by 2 US senators. Fauci’s exact words were “Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester.”

9

Anonymous #4 20h

“Don’t focus on the disastrous human rights violations committed by our government, there are other things going on” do you hear how silly that sounds? Convincing the entire country to take an experimental drug that causes miscarriages is so much worse than what’s going on right now😭

1

Anonymous #3 20h

See I hear what you’re saying, but it really seems like you must only have YikYak and live in the woods to have this opinion… have you looked around lately..?

0

Anonymous #3 20h

this is really funny bc what you're actually saying is "don't focus on the disastrous human rights violations committed by our government you should instead focus on these other human rights violations committed by our government"

0

Anonymous #3 20h

Your tone suggests you think science is silly, which isn’t a great foundation to debate from. Science does not deal in absolutes, but it does deal in commonalities.

6

Anonymous #7 20h

Like seriously in the year 2026 are we really getting scared of vaccination?

4

Anonymous #4 20h

CDC’s own director said vaccinated people “do not carry the virus.” CDC walked it back 3 days later. Biden said you won’t get COVID. That’s not being vocal about the risks, that’s overselling.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

Also you switched to attacking my tone because reality doesn’t align with your argument

1

Anonymous #7 20h

Nobody said scared. It’s that they lied about transmission. If you’re doing consequentialist math, put the trust collapse on the ledger: MMR is at 92.5% and measles is at a 33-yr high.

1

Anonymous #6 20h

No. The conversation was originally about this human rights violation. I’m staying consistent. #4 is the one shifting the spotlight. I’m happy to talk down the Trump administration any day of the week.

1

Anonymous #3 20h

They didn’t lie dude. We just got more information. The trials were conducted on an older strain, and because people kept getting Covid, a new more resistant strain emerged, which had easier transmission.

5

Anonymous #4 20h

Timing being political doesn’t make the texts fake. Every disclosure in history had a motive. If it’s real it’s real. And I’ll gladly criticize this admin’s health moves in the same breath.

1

Anonymous #3 20h

Gee I wonder why measles is at a 33 year high. It’s almost like the MMR vaccination rate dropped after 2019 and is now below the 95% required to prevent transmission.

4

Anonymous #3 20h

You feel attacked, I am more interested in breaking down the frame of reference you have for perceiving the situation. Switching my focus has more to do with the fact that I am not going to have the conversation about referencing sources with you, because you clearly think that putting “” around a sentence makes it a cited source.

2

Anonymous #7 20h

Like people seem to think that the science being corrected when presented with new information is le evil scheming scientists lying.

4

Anonymous #4 20h

And because I also don’t particularly feel like going to the trouble of looking up the exact phrasing for this chat board.

2

Anonymous #4 20h

You’re lazy and it prevents you from being aligned with the truth. I did the work for you. Simple it took me 1 minute: Walensky, MSNBC w/ Maddow, 3/29/21. CDC walked it back to the NYT, 4/1/21. Biden, CNN town hall w/ Don Lemon, 7/21/21 — full transcript is public. Those are dates and outlets. Go check them.

1

Anonymous #3 20h

Also this argument should give you MORE cause to mistrust the messages broadcast by non-health experts. How do you feel about the Trump admin’s statements on vaccines..?

3

Anonymous #7 20h

Delta hit 50% of US cases end of June 2021. CDC walked back Walensky’s claim April 1 — 3 months earlier — and said the evidence was never clear. That’s not a variant, that’s a retraction.

1

Anonymous #3 20h

FDA said in Dec 2020 there was no evidence the vaccine stopped transmission. The uncertainty predated Delta by 6 months. They asserted it anyway. That’s the part I’m calling a lie.

1

Anonymous #7 20h

You just made my point. MMR dropped after 2019. CDC’s own researchers said the drop may reflect hesitancy carrying over from COVID shots and mandate backlash. Ask what caused the drop.

1

Anonymous #4 20h

Yes, exactly — that’s my whole point and you just made it for me. Same standard both directions. When this admin overstates or hides evidence I say the same thing about them.

3

Anonymous #3 19h

Now you attack me, making sweeping assumptions and in the same breath, declaring that your sole frame of reference is a hard truth. I think it is important to understand that the frame of reference for this argument seems to me that, 1) The CDC made promises about the COVID Vaccine that were not true. 2) the science behind vaccines is not safe or trustworthy. 3) that issue is standalone and not related to politics of the time.

4

Anonymous #3 19h

i mean like a link. to a specific thing. so here's what i found, would you say that at least the first half of the video is accurate about the details? https://youtu.be/bbzgybae0GA?is=oiJlpvRU05fdRevO

6

Anonymous #4 19h

1 is my point. 2 isn’t. I’ve never said vaccine science is untrustworthy, I said the messaging outran the data. 3 I’ll drop: the politics are the point, that’s why officials overpromised.

5

Anonymous #6 19h

Links don’t render on here so I can’t open that. Drop the title and channel and I’ll watch it then get back to you

-3

Anonymous #4 19h

My response to those as I see it is: 1)The CDC was vocal about the vaccine being safe, and not entirely proofed by long-term trials. 2) the science behind vaccines has allowed the global population to live longer, and with less disease-related deaths than before penicillin. The COVID vaccine still accomplished that goal. 3) the political pressure to make public assertions shouldn’t be ignored, because the CDC are scientists, dealing in margin of errors, and the politicians are public panderer’s.

2

Anonymous #3 19h

Thank you for expanding throughout this conversation, because now I know overall we agree. Part of my interest in drawing this conversation out was because the initial tone I read with this was an anti-vaccination argument, which I strongly believe is dangerous rhetoric…

5

Anonymous #4 19h

Number 4 you have earned my respect. You seem like an intelligent individual. I apologize for calling you silly and lazy. As far as your points, agreed on 2, mostly on 3. But Walensky was the CDC director, not a politician, and she’s the one who said it on MSNBC. That’s where the scientist/panderer split breaks down.

3

Anonymous #3 19h

Likewise

4

Anonymous #4 19h

Aw this is so cute look at us talking it out and finding common ground! This gives me hope for our country. I truly hope you have a good day

6

Anonymous #3 19h

Okay. So they corrected it when they realized it was in error?

1

Anonymous #7 19h

Yes, and credit where it’s due. But the correction went to one NYT reporter while the claim went out on MSNBC. The retractions didn’t travel as far as the thing they retracted.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

That sounds like it’s what the media chose to cover and not on the CDC. They released the correction.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

Correct. Anti-vax panic about Covid is impacting other vaccines.

2

Anonymous #7 19h

It wasn’t a CDC release though, it was a spokesperson statement given to the NYT. Different thing. Nobody held a briefing to say the director had overstated it three days earlier.

1

Anonymous #7 19h

We agree on the chain, just not the first link. Panic doesn’t come from nowhere. When officials overstate and quietly retract, that’s what manufactures the panic downstream.

1

Anonymous #3 19h

Screenshot and copy and paste that way

8

Anonymous #6 19h

Yes, first half tracks. That’s the same reporting I’ve been citing, including that later data found no increased miscarriage risk. I’d part ways with the expert segment on transparency.

6

Anonymous #3 18h

so to be 100% clear: we are upset that fauci theorized a potential risk to fetuses during the first 3 months of pregnancy and said pregnant women in that group would have to weigh the risks and benefits of taking it, a few months before it was found that there was not that significant of a risk of miscarriage after all?

1

Anonymous #6 18h

No. He said “weigh the risks” privately to colleagues. Publicly it was “no red flags.” I’d have been fine if the private version was the public one. That’s literally all I’ve argued.

4

Anonymous #3 18h

where/when did he publicly and immediately say no red flags re: the vaccine's risk to pregnant women?

6

Anonymous #6 18h

Feb 3, 2021 — JAMA interview, “thus far, no red flags” re: pregnant women. Feb 10, White House briefing, ~20k vaccinated, “no red flags.” Feb 25, CBS. Texts were Jan 25. Nine days apart.

1

Anonymous #3 18h

okay gimme a bit to read

1

Anonymous #3 18h

oh it's a video interview. do you have the precise timestamp or sometime around where he's discussing this in the video?

1

Anonymous #7 18h

What about informed consent? You sound ridiculous. It’s not even a “medical intervention.” You drank all the kool aid lol

7

Anonymous #3 18h

OH NEVER MIND FOUND IT

3

Anonymous #6 18h

Yup. Saying one thing to the media and leaving out his true thoughts behind closed doors. It’s dishonest.

1

Anonymous #3 18h

well so i'm not agreeing with you yet. you will have to give me a bit so i can make sure i'm explaining myself properly.

1

Anonymous #6 18h

i'm also just straight up busy doing other things lol

1

Anonymous #6 18h

Cool hmu anytime gangy👍

1

Anonymous #3 18h

the link to the video, timestamp is 16:40 (it's in the description) for anyone else following along. i'm also going to type out the associated quote when i can so we fan go into this in detail https://www.youtube.com/live/HStAQYRreIc?is=SiZ6DshCPDQEfOye

1

Anonymous #6 18h

18:08 specifically

1

Anonymous #6 18h

To be precise: the private text had both halves — the theoretical concern AND the reassurance. Only the reassurance made it to the public. That’s the gap, not that he hid an opinion.

1

Anonymous #6 18h

The private text said pregnant women must weigh the risks. But you can’t weigh a risk nobody tells you about. “No red flags” sounds like a settled question. It wasn’t — it was untested.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

Preventative actions like vaccines are considered a form of medical intervention.

1

Anonymous OP 17h

The goal post moving in these comments from the fauci supporters is ridiculous. Unfortunately they can’t run from facts.

2

Anonymous #7 17h

You’re right idk why he said that. The point about informed consent is important though.

4

Anonymous #3 17h

OP just called the vaccines genocide bruh I don’t know why you are confused by them saying ridiculous shit

5

Anonymous #3 17h

Panic doesn’t come from nowhere. Demagogues and opportunists seize upon real mistakes for profit and get people killed. Just look at how RFK seized upon a rare case of faulty measles vaccines, and then Tonga and Samoa proceeded to get a ton of measles and way more people died.

1

Anonymous #6 17h

full quote (i think it's all relevant): "obviously as you know, with almost all vaccine trials that pregnant women, initially, are excluded as an exclusion criteria. so with the data that showed the efficacy and safety in both the vaccines that we're using [unintelligble] moderna, pfizer, they were excluded. BUT, ever since the EUAs (emergency use authorizations) were issued, there have been now over 10,000 pregnant women who have said and have been in the trials." (1/?)

1

Anonymous #6 17h

"the fda, as part of the typical follow up you have following the intial issuing of an EUA, have found, thus far—and we gotta be careful—but thus far, no red flags about that, about pregnant women. interestingly, many of the pregnant women were healthcare providers who were exposed to sars-cov2 and said 'i would rather take my chances with a vaccine than getting infected while i'm pregnant because of the adverse effect and adverse outcome on pregnancy.'" (2/?)

1

Anonymous #3 17h

so the first thing i want to say is that what he is discussing in the video and what he is discussing in the texts are about two different things, which i believe are being conflated. in the video he is talking about pregnant women who have already taken the vaccine and have been followed up with. when he says that there are "no red flags," i do not interpret it as him saying that there are or were zero risks whatsoever, but that amongst the women who had already taken the vaccine... (3/?)

1

Anonymous #6 17h

there was low or no serious, common, and/or unintended side effects observed within that group. that these things were not observed is a different matter from "are there any potential risks." even in the video you can see he is being careful AND he acknowledges risks, or that people KNOW that they're taking a risk, even if he doesn't say it blatantly. he says "and we have to be careful" which implies he knows there could be adverse effects found down the line (4/?)

1

Anonymous #6 17h

he also says that the many of the women taking the vaccines were themselves healthcare personnel—who i'm personally assuming would be more well-versed in the potential risks—and that they said they'd "rather take their chances with the vaccine." which i personally interpret as meaning that these women KNEW going into these trials that there would be risks, and they decided to take it.

1

Anonymous #3 17h

more than that, he first discusses the usual procedure of excluding pregnant women from these trials altogether at first. they do that precisely because they're trying to make sure there isn't gonna be adverse effects on the fetus. so if anything it shows even further that like. they've thought about all these things and weren't trying to be dishonest about the risks—that they were doing what they could to mitigate them (5/?)

1

Anonymous #6 17h

goddamnit i messed up the order ANYWAY. secondly, even in the texts we're discussing, even the quote you provide shows him saying that THEORETICALLY there was a risk to a very specific population of people. not that there was guaranteed risk, but a POSSIBLE risk, for which it seems there was no data to back it up yet—not sure. and this did not apply to ALL pregnant people along every single step of the journey but to specifically those 3 months or less into their pregnancy. (6/?)

1

Anonymous #6 17h

so i find it a little bit disingenuous to frame it as if he knew for sure that the vaccines would absolutely cause miscarriages and intentionally tried to conceal this from the public when that doesn't seem to be the case at all. furthermore the data seems to have confirmed that it wasn't really an issue after all. (7/?)

1

Anonymous #6 17h

thirdly and lastly, even if it was the case that fauci himself lied or hid some information about potential risks to this particular group...most pregnant women were almost certainly discussing potential risks with their doctors anyway, because being pregnant can increase you and your kid's risks for all sorts of things Beyond just what a vaccine could do to you. there's so much that needs to be monitored and i'm sure especially with the hysteria around the vaccines... (8/?)

0

Anonymous #6 17h

He knew what he did was wrong, he knew he was hurting people and worse. He didn’t inform the public of the risks. He profited from all this. We have his texts, emails, and diary. You’re not fooling anyone!! It’s only a matter of political will why he’s not charged yet

0

Anonymous #6 17h

a lot of women at this time were having a lot of conversations with their doctors about it anyway, and a lot of doctors at this time were themselves trying to be as tapped into all the data concerning both the virus and the vaccine as much as possible. they would be informed. they would be able to refuse if they wanted, as many people did. so yeah man i just don't really see these texts as being earth-shattering. (9/9)

0

Anonymous #6 17h

#6, Fauci could be charged with multiple international, federal, and state crimes. That why Biden’s handlers gave him an unprecedented 10 year pardon. Why don’t you talk about why his pardon goes back to 2014? You are so full of shit

0

Anonymous OP 17h

what political will og? donald trump has been in power for like 2 years? republicans have the majority? what's stopping him from arresting him? am i missing something?

0

Anonymous #6 16h

Covid was created in a lab jointly by the US and China. US exported the bio weapon technology from University of North Carolina (Ralph Baric’s work) to Wuhan, China. Fauci funded all of this unethical gain of function research. Most Americans don’t know this, hence no prosecution. US would be exposed

0

Anonymous OP 16h

i don't know about all that stuff tbh. i'm just analyzing the text and the video i was given. i don't really care about fauci either way. if you would like to give me more sources on fauci and his crimes i'd be happy to look into them, as i have already looked into #3's sources.

0

Anonymous #6 16h

Yea like I said, you’re full of shit haha

0

Anonymous OP 16h

so you don't have any sources for your claims?

0

Anonymous #6 16h

Do your own research. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re just being pedantic and stupid lol

0

Anonymous OP 16h

like i'm genuinely asking. i would like to look into them and evaluate the situation for myself, and understand where you're coming from. i do not have any personal investment in anthony fauci i forgot the man existed i am not against acknowledging if/when he's done something wrong if he has. was frankly underwhelmed that the situation was not as it was described to be.

1

Anonymous #6 16h

I’m genuinely telling you that you don’t fool anyone except maybe some very stupid people

0

Anonymous OP 16h

sure i can do my own research but then i wouldn't understand how YOU got to YOUR conclusion. which sources should i be going to? what exactly did i say that was pedantic and/or stupid? i'm literally asking you to help me understand so i can have a more informed opinion and conversation about it.

0

Anonymous OP 16h

who am i fooling? what am i trying to trick them into doing or believing? i looked at the text quote and then i looked at the video i was given and i drew my conclusions from there. i have already said that i dont know or care much about fauci, which means i dont know about the broader context that this all sits in. i have stated what ive observed about this particular situation based on what was given to me.

0

Anonymous #6 16h

I think this #6 bot has a learning disability lol

0

Anonymous OP 16h

calling me a bot and then you can't explain or give me sources on how you got to the conclusion you got to even when i specifically articulated why i want them FROM YOU. so let's say i do my own research and come to a different conclusion, because i didn't have access to the sources that you had/have—wouldn't you then say i've done bad research?

0