SerialBrain9 wrote on Aug 8^th, 2025 at 10:07am:


Thank you.

Kennedy proceeding with due caution is characterised as 'kennedy wants people to die'.
The depth of creepy malicioiusness among the TDS kids is unfathomable.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 8^th, 2025 at 10:16am:


He was talking about the various medical methods discussed by the previous speaker, Bill Bryan.  He was at every step checking with him, saying you are going to test that, you are going to examine it.  To characterise this clip as Trump saying you should inject bleach is a totally stupid, malicious wilful misrepresentation.


Transcript:
Bill Bryan: (27:22) We worked with John Hopkins' applied physics lab and we actually developed a larger drum to actually do more testing and it's four times the size of that. So, this is the capability that we bring to this effort. So, in summary, within the conditions we've tested today, the virus in droplets of saliva survives best in indoors and dry conditions. The virus does not survive as well in droplets of saliva, and that's important because a lot of testing being done is not necessarily being done, number one, with the COVID-19 virus and number two, in saliva or respiratory fluids. And thirdly, the virus dies the quickest in the presence of direct sunlight under these conditions. And when you look at that chart, look at the aerosol as you breathe it, you put it in a room, 70 to 75 degrees, 20% humidity, low humidity. Half-life is about an hour, but you get outside and it cuts down to a minute and a half. Very significant difference when it gets hit with UV rays. Mr. president, while there are many unknown links in the COVID-19 transmission chain, we believe these trends can support practical decision making to lower the risks associated with the virus. If I could have my next slide and while that comes up, you'll see a number of some practical applications.

Bill Bryan: (28:34) For example, increasing the temperature and humidity of potentially contaminated indoor spaces appears to reduce the stability of the virus, and extra care may be warranted for dry environments that do not have exposure to solar light. We're also testing disinfectants readily available. We've tested bleach, we've tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids and I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes. Isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds and that's with no manipulation, no rubbing. Just bring it on and leaving it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster. We're also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva. This is not the end of our work. As we continue to characterize this virus and integrate our findings into practical applications to mitigate exposure and transmission. I would like to thank the president, thank the vice president for their ongoing support and leadership to the department and for their work in addressing this pandemic. I would also like to thank the scientists not only in S and T and the NBAC, but to the larger scientific and R and D community. Thank you very much.

Donald Trump: (29:46) A question that probably some of you are thinking of if you're totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too. Sounds interesting, right? And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it'd be interesting to check that so that you're going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we'll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That's pretty powerful. Steve, please.

Steve: (30:50) You said that the country will be in a better place by early summer. Does that mean you're going to need to extend the social distancing guidelines until then?

Donald Trump: (30:57) Well, we may and we may go beyond that. We're going to have to see where it is and I think people are going to know. You're going to know, I'm going to know. I think people are going to know just out of common sense, at some point we won't have to do that, but until we feel it's safe, we're going to be extending.
etc, etc

https://www.rev.com/transcripts/donald-trump-coronavirus-press-conference-transcript-april-23


You numpties rely almost entirely on hostile bloggers and youtubers to do the 'thinking' for you. Ludicrous, malicious, idiiotic.  But you love it, it let's you scrarch away at your dermatillomania Trumpia.

Frank wrote on Aug 8^th, 2025 at 10:18am:


He's not proceeding with caution - he's ignoring science.

He clearly wants people to die.

January 2020:

“It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine,” Trump told CNBC’s Joe Kernen from the World Economic Forum in Davos.

August 2025:

1,225,706 US Covid deaths, 103,436,829 cases (and counting).

And a countless number disabled by Long Covid.

Which is going to get a whole lot worse (and not just with Covid) with that nutter RFK Jr in charge of "health".

Perhaps they're playing the same 'game' as Australia? Let Covid and other illnesses kill as many elderly and other vulnerable people as possible to save money on pension and healthcare costs.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 8^th, 2025 at 10:27am:



Quote:


https://open.substack.com/pub/unbekoming/p/vaccinated-60-vs-unvaccinated-264?sel...

No - YOU GET THE JAB 🖕🖕

i was also looking at the stats for SIDS - 80% died within 24 hours of getting Jabbed and it went up to 90% over 7 days

Frank wrote on Aug 8^th, 2025 at 10:50am:


He wants to.

This is just the beginning.

He's going to be responsible for tens of thousands of deaths.

RFK Jr. Justifies Cuts to mRNA Vaccine Projects With Lies

In justifying the government’s termination of $500 million in funding for mRNA vaccine projects, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. falsely claimed mRNA vaccines “fail to protect effectively” against COVID-19 and suggested they are unsafe.

The mRNA shots saved millions of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic and have shown promise against influenza.

Part 2

Single Antigen Limitation:
Kennedy correctly notes that mRNA vaccines target a single viral protein (the spike protein), making them vulnerable to mutations.

When the virus mutates, as seen with Omicron, the vaccine’s effectiveness diminishes, requiring constant updates.
This limitation contrasts with whole-virus vaccines, which expose the immune system to multiple viral components, potentially offering broader and more durable protection.
 
Counter to Establishment Narrative:

“Experts” like Dr. Jake Scott argue that mRNA’s ability to be quickly updated is a strength, not a weakness. However, the need for frequent updates and boosters underscores the technology’s reactive nature, which may not be sustainable or practical for widespread use, especially in resource-limited settings. Kennedy’s focus on broader platforms like whole-virus vaccines addresses this structural flaw.

**Safety Concerns Are Not Baseless**
Documented Side Effects: While establishment sources claim mRNA vaccines are “remarkably safe,” adverse events have been reported.

For example, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young men, were linked to mRNA vaccines, with a 2022 study noting an increased risk in males aged 12–29.

These events raised concerns about long-term safety, especially for younger populations with low COVID-19 risk. Additionally, reports of blood clotting disorders and neurological issues have been documented in adverse event databases like VAERS.

*Lack of Long-Term Data**
mRNA vaccines were developed and deployed rapidly under emergency use authorizations, leaving limited long-term safety data. Kennedy’s skepticism about their safety reflects concerns about unknown risks, particularly given the novel nature of mRNA technology.

For instance, the vaccines’ lipid nanoparticles and potential for off-target immune responses have raised questions among some researchers.

**Counter to Establishment Narrative**
Experts like Dr. Paul Offit emphasize that serious side effects are “very rare” and that mRNA vaccines underwent rigorous testing.
However, the speed of development and the lack of decades-long safety data, compared to traditional vaccines, fuel legitimate concerns.
Kennedy’s decision to prioritize platforms with “stronger safety records” (e.g., whole-virus vaccines) is a precautionary approach, not a lie, especially given public distrust stemming from adverse event reports.

**Strategic Reallocation of Resources**
  Diversifying Vaccine Platforms: Kennedy’s decision to redirect $500 million to “safer, broader vaccine platforms” like whole-virus vaccines or novel technologies is a strategic move to diversify the U.S. vaccine portfolio. mRNA technology has dominated funding.

Whole-virus vaccines, for example, have a longer history and may induce broader immunity, making them less susceptible to variant-specific failures.

**Preserving Taxpayer Investment**
HHS exempted certain late-stage mRNA projects (e.g., Arcturus Therapeutics) to preserve prior investments, showing a balanced approach.
This suggests Kennedy’s decision is not a blanket rejection of mRNA but a targeted shift away from overreliance on a single technology with known limitations.

**Counter to Establishment Narrative**
Critics argue that cutting mRNA funding undermines pandemic preparedness, citing its rapid development timeline.
However, this assumes mRNA is the only viable platform for quick response, ignoring advances in other technologies. For example, recombinant protein vaccines or universal vaccine approaches could offer comparable speed with potentially greater durability. Kennedy’s focus on alternatives is forward-thinking, not anti-science.

**Public Trust and Transparency**
**Erosion of Trust**
The initial overpromising of mRNA vaccines’ ability to “stop the spread,” coupled with mandates and the dismissal of adverse event concerns, eroded public trust. Kennedy’s actions align with addressing this skepticism by prioritizing platforms perceived as safer and more transparent.
Posts on X from users like reflect public demand for evidence supporting mRNA’s efficacy and safety, which HHS claims to have reviewed internally.

**Counter to Establishment Narrative**
Critics like Dr. Jennifer Nuzzo argue that Kennedy’s claims sow doubt about vaccines broadly, harming public health.
However, this ignores the fact that public distrust was already high due to shifting narratives and perceived lack of transparency during the pandemic. Kennedy’s move to reassess mRNA funding responds to these concerns, aiming to rebuild trust through diversified, evidence-based investments.