And Yet ANOTHER Progressive Hero Is Ambushed With Tough Questioning By A Mainstream Media Journalist! This Time, It’s Dr. Fauci…

Breakthru q

Good.

Nobody deserves this more.

On CNBC’s “Closing Bell,” host Sara Eisen confronted Fauci about the inconvenient phenomenon of breakthrough cases of the Wuhan virus, where fully vaccinated people get sick anyway, with some requiring hospitalization. She asked if the government is being “too casual about the limitations of the vaccine.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped tracking breakthrough cases in May. It has kept track of the vaccinated who have been hospitalized or died: as of Sept. 27, the CDC reported 22,115 such patients. However, as Eisen insisted, that’s just part of the story.

There’s nothing like personal experience to prompt a journalist to start paying attention: she was i9nfected despite being fully vaccinated, and claimed that the virus had recently spread through her “entire family.” Fauci’s answer was evasive: he cited data indicating that unvaccinated people still remain most vulnerable to hospitalization or death from COVID, and the vaccination protects most people from a severe outcome if they so get the Wuhan virus. He told Eisen she should not “confuse” the “overwhelming benefits of the protection of vaccines” with occurrences of breakthrough cases. That, however, wasn’t what she asked. What she asked was how the CDC can be so confident about the effectiveness of the vaccine if it doesn’t record how many vaccinated people still get infected.

It’s obvious, isn’t it? The CDC doesn’t want to have to deal with vaccine skeptics using the data to justify not getting vaccinated. As has been a recurring phenomenon during the pandemic, the government in general and Fauci in particular refuse to provide information when they think the public will refuse to follow their directives if they get the facts. In response to Fauci’s huminahumina dodge, Eisen asked, “How do we know that [breakthrough cases are] happening to a small proportion and how do we know that they are tending to be mild?”

The answer is “You don’t.” Maybe the accurate answer from Fauci would be , “That’s for me to know and you to find out!” But this is what he said:

So, in answer to your very appropriate question about if you get vaccinated and you get infected, is there less of a chance that you will be transmitting it to someone who is unvaccinated or someone who is vulnerable? The chances of doing that are diminished by being vaccinated and even further diminished, according to preliminary data we’ll wait to see the real fundamental core of the data, but it looks like that extra added of protection from a boost will be very valuable.”

Her question was indeed very appropriate, but that’s not what she asked! Even his evasive answer wasn’t accurate. The CDC has not said the chances of people transmitting the virus have “diminished” if you are fully vaccinated. The CDC says the opposite of that: fully vaccinated people can transmit the virus as readily as unvaccinated people, though not for as long a period.

Only sarcasm will suffice. I just can’t imagine why so many Americans refuse to trust the directives of health officials regarding vaccinations. What have they ever done to make us doubt them?

_________________________

Source: CNBC

48 thoughts on “And Yet ANOTHER Progressive Hero Is Ambushed With Tough Questioning By A Mainstream Media Journalist! This Time, It’s Dr. Fauci…

    • I think that’s been wiped out of TV interviewer’s brains, Chris. It started during the Clinton administration. “Interviewees” get free rein to recite all their talking points without interruption. It seems to just be part of the deal.

      • Here’s another breathtaking example of people not answering a question and talking about something else:

        “‘Collection of information is routine,’ Yellen assured when asked by CNBC’s Squawk Box co-host Andrew Ross Sorkin about the new information collection that some Americans claim is an invasion of privacy.

        Yellen insisted that the collection will help fill the tax gap.

        ‘There’s an enormous tax gap in the U.S. estimated at $7 trillion over the next 10 years in terms of a shortfall of tax collections to what we believe are owed,’ she said. ‘And that’s not coming from people failing to report wage income or dividend income where there’s good information. It comes from places where the information on income is opaque and can be hidden.’

        She added: ‘It’s a simple way for the IRS to get a sense where that might be – it’s just a few pieces of information about people’s bank accounts.’

        The new proposal requires financial institutions to annually report the total amount that went in and out of the bank as well as loan and investment accounts if within that year the accounts hold a value of at least $600 or if the total transactions are $600 or more in a year.

        More simply, this means that if total funds flowing in and out of a credit or debit account equal at least $600, banks have to report those figures to the IRS. This includes paychecks or money transferred from apps like PayPal.”

        Incredible. Is it an invasion of privacy, Janet? Evidently the answer is “no it’s not” because lots of information is collected and “there’s a tax gap.” Just answer the damned question, Sweetheart. And how do you like “tax gap?” So there’s an income gap and now there’s a tax gap? So the humongous spending can be recouped by simply catching the 7 trillion of unpaid taxes over the next ten years? Talk about remaking the economy! Every taxpayer will be assigned their personal auditor to check their checking accounts and credit cards and all other accounts every day to see what we’re doing? Nice. After all, it’s not really our money until the government has decided they’re not entitled to a big chunk of it. What arrogance.

  1. I always remember Harry Caray doing a Cubs game in the late ’70s. The Cubbies were floundering and finally Harry almost wailed, breaking all team broadcaster mores, “Can’t ANYBODY on this team get a HIT!?”

    Can’t anyone find anyone smarter (that’s not asking much) than St. Anthony of Fauci? He’s simply not very smart. Aren’t there any more competent physicians or epidemiologists available? Why is this guy inflicted on us after all these months and months of ineptitude? Doesn’t anyone have a big Vaudeville cane to yank him off the stage by his neck?

    • Remember when Trump said he was going to hire the ‘best’ people and everyone made fun of those people because it was obvious that they weren’t very good or very smart? What people didn’t notice was that those same ‘not very good or very smart’ people had extensive and impressive careers in government and only became ‘not very good or very smart’ when they worked for Trump. Nobody seemed to consider that Trump DID hire the ‘best’ people around, but they really weren’t very good. Fauci is probably one of the brightest and most competent people at the CDC.

      • Epidemiologists strike me as being analogous to the business commentators who make their living explaining what happened in the markets after they’ve closed. They are brilliant after the fact explainers. But they create the impression that explaining things after they’ve occurred is the functional equivalent of predicting the future. Epidemiology seems to have no functional utility at all. Am I missing something? As do economists, their every utterance should be prefaced by “if current trends continue.” But they rarely do! As a statistician once told me, “You can’t predict the future. You might as well flip a coin.”

  2. Dr Fauci is a liar. I’m glad the mainstream is breaking rank and starting to point it out.

    The study just released of 5.6 medical recipients shows the vaxxed have far higher cases, deaths and hospitalizations than the non vaxxed.

    The numbers in the study are chilling.

    Why did we have a cold weather breakout in the summer? Of a covid virus? First time in history.

    There are very accomplished scientists and doctors from around the world speaking (and being carefully not covered by msm) out with very scary findings.

    Including top German doctors who have studied the bodies of vaxxed who died…

    Too much to put here but I’m glad he is being asked and glad people are catching on to his double speak.

    Thanks for sharing this. I quit watching all msm)

    • The media are also very carefully avoiding covering the fact that prophylactic use of Ivermectin has virtually wiped out the covid virus in India. The vaccine push has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with power and control.

        • In the state of Uttar Pradesh, the second largest state in India, yes it is. Less than 5% of their population is vaccinated, yet they are down to less than 100 cases and 1 death per day. Uttar Pradesh has a population of around 245 million people, for population sample size.

        • I get my information, for what it’s worth, primarily from my coworkers who are either currently living in or immigrated from India.

    • The study just released of 5.6 medical recipients shows the vaxxed have far higher cases, deaths and hospitalizations than the non vaxxed.

      What study?

      Put up, or shut up.

      • Uh, you can ask me. Don’t be a Richard.
        Wtf is with the people on this site?

        You can look where I link Tom.

        Sorry Jack but I don’t get the rudeness. Probably why I’m one of the few women here. And to think I got a COTD defending MEN!!!

        Ugh.

        • You are spreading what looks like serious misinformation. If you don’t want to be treated rudely, provide serious documentation. I cannot refute vague assertions made about unnamed studies.

          I very much appreciate that you posted the study (https://www.humetrix.com/powerpoint-vaccine.html). I have been reviewing independently the raw data from the beginning of the pandemic, as it is obvious that many parties are not able to accurately portray the data.

          Reviewing the slideshow, it is indeed concerning that cases are rising among the vaccinated. However, it is important to properly interpret and represent the data.

          Stipulations:
          * The study shows a majority of COVID cases are among fully vaccinated persons.
          * While numbers are not provided, it is reasonable to conclude that breakthrough cases cause more hospitalizations and deaths.

          It is not a lie to state these as facts. However, these facts can be used to mislead; false conclusions can be drawn from true facts. For instance, this study is limited to persons who are older than 65; it compared infections of non-vaccinated persons over the age of 65 persons that age who are vaccinated.

          Dr Fauci is a liar. I’m glad the mainstream is breaking rank and starting to point it out.

          Doctor Fauci is certainly an admitted liar especially about whether masks are appropriate. I personally have zero confidence in his ability to communicate, which is why I review the data myself.

          However, nothing in this study adds further evidence that Fauci is a liar regarding vaccines. He has consistently stated that the vaccines offer significant protection, and that this protections fades with time and against different variants. Everything in this study is consistent with basic premise.

          The study just released of 5.6 medical recipients shows the vaxxed have far higher cases, deaths and hospitalizations than the non vaxxed.

          The numbers in the study are chilling.

          As I said, this statement is true, but nothing can be concluded from this merely true statement.

          This statement, however, was used as evidence that Fauci is lying. In this context, it is seriously misleading – (head explodingly misleading!). By pairing these statements, it appears you are erroneously making the claim that the catching COVID while vaccinated causes more harm than catching COVID alone.This is a seriously flawed conclusion that I must rebutt. It appears to be an honest mistake, but my invective was directed at this misinformation, and my inability to verify or challenge it because no reference was provided.

          On the chart in Slide 7, it shows roughly 80% of people are vaccinated, and 20% are unvaccinated. Thus, the population of 65+ person is 4 times larger than the non-vaccinated group. However, the vaccinated persons make up only 70% of cases in person aged 65+.

          Thus unvaccinated persons are proportionately more likely to be infected, as 20% of the population experience 30% of the cases. This directly shows the vaccines still offer some protection.

          The study also carefully notes that this increase occurs several months after most got fully vaccinated, and as a new variant than they were originally vaccinated against became more prevalent. Because of this evidence, the CDC and FDA are starting to promote booster vaccinations.

          Slide 2 directly states that vaccinated persons are less likely to be hospitalized, or die from a break through infection. Since the population of vaccinated persons is 5 times higher than non-vaccinated person, more vaccinated people will die than non-vaccinated, but the rate of hospitalizations and deaths is lower.

          The whole notion that the CDC/Dr. Fauci/etc are misrepresenting or over stating the effecacy of the vaccine is flawed. They have consistently said that the vaccines offer 60%-95% protection against infection. They have also consistently said that immunity can fade over time, and that vaccinations against the original variant are less effective against the British, South African, and Delta Variants.

          The growing absolute numbers of vaccinated people getting infected, hospitalized, or dying is cause for concern and appropriate for asking questions. It is a fact that these numbers are increasing, and this should be investigated. Such facts however should not be recklessly shared with other facts to imply a fallacious conclusion

          Doctor Fauci is indeed a liar; that doesn’t mean vaccines are not effective or cause more harm than good.

          • i left you a long reply that’s STUCK 😦 sorry again jack 😦 not sure why your server hates women LOL!! hahahahahahha 😛

            And btw, i was NOT saying getting covid vaxxed is more harmful. YOU assumed that and said i was spreading misinformation. ugh. please that word.

            hopefully Jack gets my reply up. 🙂 I left you a like I think you’d like to watch even if you may not like what you hear. at least you can see if it’s true as all the information given is public record which is important.

  3. I’ve just starting hearing about these breakthrough cases. A friend of mine said his neighbor died of covid (about 1 to 2 weeks ago); both he (the deceased) and his wife were both vaccinated. The wife also contracted covid but she recovered in one week.

    My wife and I are vaccinated and as more and more time passes with all the ambiguities related to covid I feel more and more like I shouldn’t have bothered with the vaccine. It’s also possible I had the covid before getting the vaccine as I had a mild fever and other “covid” symptoms for a week back in 2020 (it’s been so long now I forget the exact month). Everything is a covid symptom though. Whatever it was that I had came before I got the vaccine but I never got tested as I never became severly ill. I’m 63 for the record.

    Personally, I now avoid looking up almost anything on the internet; you get just about every conceivable variation of the answer to the question you have, especially covid (aka Wuhan virus). Then you spend time reading the articles from all the angles and since you’re not an expert yourself – how do you determine which article by which “expert” or “journalist” is the most factual and accurate? Sure, a few of them you can discard immediatly but not all. Another thing is that there’s so much censorship now how do we know the people being shut down and silenced aren’t the ones that have a more accurate account of what is true? How many are now afraid to speak out for fear of cancellation or ruin.

    It seems to me the flu can be just as deadly for older people and the flu shot is voluntary. Why do we need a mandate for covid vaccinations especially when this is a mutating virus. Are follow ups or booster shots going to be mandatory also? How much longer with the mandates last? The Wuhan virus and flu virus is not like the measles virus where the surface proteins that the measles virus uses to enter cells are ineffective if they suffer any mutation, meaning that any changes to the virus come at a major cost. https://bit.ly/3FgG6d7 This makes a mandatory measles vaccine realistic – a mutating virus that requires periodic vaccinations seems unmanageable. People that get the voluntary flu vaccine are mostly those at higher risk.

    Just about the entire pandemic has been mishandled from the very beginning and it just keeps getting worse. Fauci is one of the worst offenders. At this point it almost seems that total ignorance of the wuhan virus would be better for people than the overwhelming and ambiguous information currently available.

  4. Exactly!! She should question him about it.
    I’m increasingly concerned with the numerous side effects of the vaccines in young people who also have a VERY LOW chance of dying or being hospitalized from Covid. It is hard to make risk assessments without the data. It’s hard to have data when you ignore the evidence being presented to you. Bias really does make you stupid.

    • That was one of the reasons the FDA apparently wouldn’t authorize the booster shots. In the discussion, it was stated that the Pfizer vaccine was more dangerous for men under 40 than COVID is. That isn’t necessarily saying the vaccine is that dangerous, just the COVID is VERY not dangerous to people under 40. It was stated that 23 people in the military have died from COVID during the first 18 months of the pandemic An additional 23 died from July-August when they needed to prop up their case for mandatory EUA vaccines against the Supreme Court prohibition. Even a small increase in military suicides due to the added stress of an controversial (to say the least) vaccine mandate would eclipse that number, however. Military Suicides increased by ~80 people from 2019-2020, but we are putting MORE stress on our servicemembers.

  5. Jack…do you know how many vaccines are 100% effective. Zero point zero. Vaccinated people ALWAYS get sick. The CDC can be so confident about the effectiveness of the vaccine because of the clinical trials, because of the hospitalization rate, because of the death rate, because of data from other countries and states that do collect the breakthrough data. They also used to collect data on breakthrough cases.

    The CDC may have made a mistake not tracking breakthrough cases (like keeping track of mutations, changing epidemiology of Covid, etc)…but that doesn’t meant we don’t know how effective the vaccine is. We do.

    If you care how effective the vaccines are pertaining to breakthrough cases…go read the clinical trials. You can also look at the states that DO collect data about breakthrough cases. There are a bunch. Or you can look up the data about other countries.You can also look at the data the CDC collected from Jan. to April when they DID collect breakthrough info.

    Its odd you care so much about breakthrough cases when the death and hospitalization rate data is readily available and obviously the more important and relevant data point that PROVES the vaccines work. I just think you get a kick out of sowing distrust in the government, thereby causing distrust in vaccines.

    • You really don’t read these posts, do you? It wasn’t about my opinion or beliefs about vaccines at all. I’m on to you— your game is to cherry pick a tangential aspect of the real issue being discussed that you lack the wit, data or skill to argue about, and then blather on about irrelevancies. The post was about the CDC hiding data. The post was about Fauci refusing to address the issue of breakthrough cases, because there is NO excuse for the CDC not tracking break-out cases. None. Just a motive: they don’t want to give those stupid antivaxxers any ammunition. It’s just like why the climatologists hide ambiguous data and projections that prove false.

      I don’t care a bit about breakthrough cases, you dummy. I care about officials who lie and hide the ball; I care about so-called professionals who have proven dishonest and untrustworthy blaming the public for not trusting them. So your reaction to that is to write another comment accusing me of being suspicious of vaccines and supporting those who are? Idiot. My position was made quite forcefully here, just two months ago. It hasn’t changed. You claim that you were following the blog before its “decline” and since. Miss that one, did you? Or is “every member of the cast, staff and crew would have to be vaccinated and show proof of it” too erudite for you to comprehend?

      You know, a commenter asked me if I thought you were the wistfully remembered progressive warrior Chris, who was banned here, using a new screen name. I answered that there was no way: Chris is much, much smarter, and also had integrity.

      Other commenters are free to respond to your offal; me, I have a dog I’d rather argue with.

      • How can the CDC hide data they aren’t collecting anymore?

        The CDC isn’t hiding data or lying. That’s another conspiracy theory. You can look up all this data on their website…

        Again, if you care so much about breakthrough cases, you can look it up on their website. They used to collect this data but stopped. It’s still there.

        It’s really amazing that I’m arguing in good faith and you’re holding my comments back for moderation while also insulting me.

        • Thank you Jack !!

          What an idiotic reply to you post.

          I went and watched this clip to first HAND see his answer.

          HE LIED more and more. HE KNOWS the clinical trials ONLY showed that the shots prevented serious illlness!! Anyting less THAT is a lie!!

          He started lying when she brought up the pill that DOES THE SAME THING!!!

        • Tom
          Every person admitted to a hospital is tested for covid. Every positive result nets the hospital 30,000 extra dollars for whatever. Every death is a covid death even if the person was in hospice for other ailments. That instruction came direct from the CDC. The CDC makes no differentiating stat for those who died FROM covid and those who died WITH covid.
          Trump was roundly chastised for saying we should stop counting the positive cases because asymptomatic persons were not threatening or hospital infrastructure but you excuse the CDC for stopping counting the number of breakthrough cases. Credibility demands consistency.

          Funny I don’t remember you weighing in on the propaganda against Trump. Example: Muslim travel ban did not ban Muslims but residents from countries that we have no way to evaluate. Indonesia was not banned, UAE, Qutar, Saudi Arabia residents were not banned yet progressives painted his policy as racist. The same occured when Trump stated that criminals were coming into the US illegally.
          When you take a position to back or condemn the legitimacy of political operatives or government in general, one’s integrity matters.

        • Tom, please try this again it works and was updated TODAY!! with CDC data!

          https://www.humetrix.com/powerpoint-vaccine.html

          check out slde 7. here is what it says if you cant access it… is that of the 80% vaccinated over 65 years old, 71% of covid cases occurred in the fully vaccinated. PLEASE go read this study and check out the data for yourself. This is what the media should be reporting but is not. (They are in England who has similar findings. I don’t fault you for not knowing as this is not easy to find by searching. One has to dig or follow the scientists who are sharing it.

          https://www.humetrix.com/powerpoint-vaccine.html

          let me know if it works ok?

      • Also, I’ve noticed you do this a lot…

        You’ll write a post about X and Y, and then when someone challenges you on Y…you claim the post is ONLY about X.

        Why do you do that? I was responding to DIRECT quotes from your article.

      • Thank you Jack !!

        What an idiotic reply to you post.

        I went and watched this clip to first HAND see his answer.

        HE LIED more and more. HE KNOWS the clinical trials ONLY showed that the shots prevented serious illlness!! Anyting less THAT is a lie!!

        He started lying when she brought up the pill that DOES THE SAME THING!!!

  6. “”but that doesn’t meant we don’t know how effective the vaccine is. We do.””

    OK, so enlighten us — if 100,000 people are fully vaccinated how what percentage of them are going to come down with Covid? How many will die? We’re adults, we can handle the truth.

  7. @Diego

    Depends what vaccine you get. But Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech protects 93% and 88% of people who get them from being hospitalized. So out of 100,000 people, 7 or 12 people would be hospitalized with Covid depending on what vaccine they took. So at the most, 7 to 12 people out of 100,000 would die.

    Pfizer is 95% effective at preventing covid, but that number is dropping due to waning efficacy over time and probably Delta (thanks to people not getting the vaccine).

    So 5 people out of 100,000 would actually get covid after two dose of Pfizer. It’s probably higher now though.

    • You are posting incorrect information. You said above Pfizer protects 88% of people from going to the hospital, thus 12% might be hospitalized. Out of 100,000 people – 12,000 might be hospitalized (not 12). Same for Moderna, where it would be 7,000/100,000.

      You then say Pfizer protects 95% of people, contradicting your first paragraph (there is only one Pfizer vaccine).

      • Right sorry, it’s 7,000 to 12,000

        All the other info is correct. The Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective against getting covid at all. Which is why it’s higher than the 88%, which is only about being hospitalized, not preventing covid all together.

      • Ahh, you beat me to it. If the hospitalization rate were really 7-12% amongst the vaccinated, that would yield somewhere between 12 and 22 million people being hospitalized. That would be concerning.

        But more to the point, it sounds as though you’re giving us the efficacy rate of these vaccines from the clinical trials — which said that 93 or 95% of those fully vaccinated would be protected totally from the disease and those infected would almost all have only fairly mild cases.

        But the question of today is what the odds are of breakthrough infections. A subsidiary question might be what is the starting efficacy of these vaccines against the current variant, but I don’t think that is the current thrust of our discussion.

        If these numbers are not being tracked by CDC, then it’s difficult for them to quantify what the current risk might be, although I see that cases in a number of southern states have plummeted over the past 6 weeks.

  8. In keeping wiht this Fauci lying subject, this current interview goes into detail about Dr. Fauci’s lies and with supporting public record info. I’d highly recommend watching it OR reading the transcript.

    You’re welcome. 🙂

  9. I just can’t imagine why so many Americans refuse to trust the directives of health officials regarding vaccinations. What have they ever done to make us doubt them?

    Well, here in Australia the health officials long ago agitated for – and got – large scale HPV vaccination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine) of both girls and boys as a public health measure, despite boys hardly being at risk at all in the ordinary course of things (wikipedia is a bit coy about the net costs to boys, but it’s there if you know what you are loking at). The health officials were quite deliberately doing things to boys in order to help others, regardless of whether it was a gain for the boys. Now, I have a mathematical background and an understanding of what goes on with Tragedy of the Commons/Prisoners’ Dilemma mechanisms, which underpin issues of herd immunity etc., so even at the time and with nothing personal at stake I could see what they were doing and why – and how. That means that I started all this present stuff with a head start of both scepticism and an analytical toolkit, which is more than a lot of people. (Answers? no, I don’t have any either, any more than the experts, all I’ve got are criteria to assess what happens and which bets to make. Currently, I plan on waiting years to get the whole story before I commit to a gamble, unless desperate death rates come first and it comes down to choosing a least worst.)

    Oh, some recent news is about a drug that prevents Covid from developing further in early stage patients. It ostensibly does this by introducing errors into the virus replication so it dies out. What could possibly go wrong? It’s not as if that could not only select for mutant strains that evade the cull but also generate candidate strains.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.