World Health Organization looks ahead to life without U.S.

The WHO bungled COVID from the start - slow to act but very quick to parrot the Chinese COMMUNIST Party, and incapable of offering clear, timely guidance. This was the beginning of the end - poor leadership and bureaucratic failure on a global scale.

Bottom line is, sovereign nations must set their own health policies. The idea that unelected officials in Geneva should dictate public health to the entire world is absurd and dangerous. Centralized power is never a good thing, as it doesn’t solve crises, just magnifies them.

It’s time to decentralize, reclaim national autonomy, and build systems that serve citizens - NOT global elites.

WHO?

The WHO bungled COVID from the start

No it did not, relying on the only country that had information about the virus was inevitable, and as soon as other countries began to provide data that was the basis of all further recommendations. The recommendations of the WHO have been recognized as extremely useful and helped saving millions of lives, in this case the US was a tragic case where populations with an specific political identification did not follow those recommendations and the burden of the disease was much more important for them, even when compared with peers that had as the only difference another political preference that much more easily accepted the scientific realities of the pandemic.

Bottom line is, sovereign nations must set their own health policies

They do, they will even if they enter into accords with the WHO, the ones that lose ground and power are international pharmaceutical companies that will no longer have the ability to push and discriminate against developing powers, and therefore are making great efforts to manipulate people into having a wrong understanding of what it means to collaborate with the WHO.

That China is now becoming much more important and will be able to push their interests much more easily is also a consequence of the US recognizing it is a poor country that no longer can afford to fund soft power initiatives like WHO programs. Developing countries may be forced now to turn their back to the US in order to have essential public health initiatives funded, reducing even more the now withering american influence.

@virusrex, you contradict yourself by once claiming nations maintain sovereignty even after joining supranational accords, then in the next paragraph you refer to it as a soft power initiative. Which is it?

WHO proves itself to be a tool of oppression wielded by the highest bidder. Not only should nations distance themselves from that kind of power imbalance but actively seek to end it altogether.

you contradict yourself by once claiming nations maintain sovereignty even after joining supranational accords, then in the next paragraph you refer to it as a soft power initiative. 

There is no contradiction, the different nations have their national powers intact, and for those that are underdeveloped that still means theirs are limited, just less so. Accords don't make countries magically equal and free from every influence, if anything they would help against specific kinds of influences (in this case from international pharmaceutical companies). Countries will have to choose differently if they want extra support, that is what soft power means, not being forced to make a decision but being tempted by extra benefits. The US was very good at this, until it had to recognize it is beyond its capacity and left the field defeated.

WHO proves itself to be a tool of oppression wielded by the highest bidder

No it does not, because it would have no power to push countries, it can simply show what are the best options based on science. Do you imagine it has some kind of army to go and force anybody to do anything? the only power gained from the accords is what the own countries choose to use against international companies, it is not like the WHO becomes anything above what it is right now.

That China is now becoming much more important and will be able to push their interests much more easily is also a consequence of the US recognizing it is a poor country that no longer can afford to fund soft power initiatives like WHO programs.

So let’s get this straight: the U.S. is now a “poor country” because it dares to stop funneling TAXPAYER dollars into a corrupt, bloated global health bureaucracy that served as Beijing’s sock puppet during COVID?

Claiming the CCP will now be able to “push their interests more easily” isn’t a neutral observation, it's a not-so-subtle an unsurprising cheer for authoritarian expansion.

The world needs the exact OPPOSITE of what you're advocating. We need leaders who stand for sovereignty, transparency, and truth - and who know the difference between a global health system and a global propaganda machine.

So let’s get this straight: the U.S. is now a “poor country” because it dares to stop funneling TAXPAYER dollars into a corrupt, bloated global health bureaucracy that served as Beijing’s sock puppet during COVID?

First the accusation is completely false, since the WHO criticized China even more than the US, and second yes, the US conceded defeat not only about the WHO but about many other kinds of avenues to use its soft power over the world, it recognized it can't afford to tempt any country to support the US over any other power so gave up in efforts that for decades helped the US impose itself over others.

Claiming the CCP will now be able to “push their interests more easily” isn’t a neutral observation, it's a not-so-subtle an unsurprising cheer for authoritarian expansion.

Nonsense, saying mafia group A is showing much more power than mafia group B in no way says either of them is better, it only recognizes that the previously powerful thug is being overpowered in the international field by another one.

The world needs the exact OPPOSITE of what you're advocating.

The exact opposite would be divided countries that allow international companies to inflate prices to the detriment of everybody but specially developing countries, thinking this is desirable is deeply irrational and morally inacceptable. In the same way you failed to defend the false claims that the WHO somehow would impose anything over any country you are also failing to defend the claim that countries being united against private interests is somehow bad.

The exact opposite would be divided countries that allow international companies to inflate prices to the detriment of everybody but specially developing countries, thinking this is desirable is deeply irrational and morally inacce

The idea that only centralized global power can protect us from corporate abuse is a false, DANGEROUS dichotomy. Sovereign nations already regulate prices and negotiate on behalf of their people - they don’t need (and certainly didn't ask for) unelected bureaucrats in Geneva to do it for them.

Oh and centralization doesn’t prevent exploitation, it just concentrates it. Again, let me point you to the WHO’s disastrous COVID response: parroting the CCP, delaying action, flip-flopping on basic guidance. Nothing short of institutional failure. Btw, claiming the WHO “can’t impose” anything is naive. It influences funding, policy, and access to health resources. Just because it's soft coercion doesn't mean it isn't coercion - and it’s real.

At the end of the day, decentralization is the only way to go - it’s resilience, accountability, and national self-determination. Centralized power, on the other hand, is the fast lane to unaccountable, globalized FAILURE.

The idea that only centralized global power can protect us from corporate abuse is a false,

Congratulations you refuted something only you said in order to completely misrepresent the accords. In reality the "global power" is just different nations organizing themselves not to fall prey to international companies, without any "centralization" happening.

When you have to refute false arguments (strawman) this means you have nothing against the actual arguments that demonstrate you have been wrong. It is not for nothing that pharmaceutical companies are investing a huge amount of money to mislead people to reject the accords using exactly the same false arguments you are repeating.

Sovereign nations already regulate prices and negotiate on behalf of their people 

From a position of weakness, your arguments are the same company owners try to use to convince their employees not to be unionized, after all "each employee already discuss their duties and salary" .

Oh and centralization doesn’t prevent exploitation, it just concentrates it.

Which again makes it very fortunate that your false misrepresentation is not what is happening, meaning you are again just refuting yourself.

let me point you to the WHO’s disastrous COVID response: parroting the CCP, delaying action, flip-flopping on basic guidance.

False, false and false. The WHO repeatedly critiziced the Chinese government response, it acted according to evidence becoming available and improved the recommendations (which is not flip-flopping) again only when the evidence proved a different approach was better, that is what science is supposed to do, act only when evidence can be obtained and according to that evidence, even if it means changing direction.

Once again the evidence from the US clearly proved which approach was a failure, people whose political affiliation made it natural to trust the science had less problems and deaths during the pandemic, while those that had a political affiliation that demanded rejection of science had much more health problems and deaths, that is a failure.

"Bottom line is, sovereign nations must set their own health policies. The idea that unelected officials in Geneva should dictate public health to the entire world is absurd and dangerous. Centralized power is never a good thing, as it doesn’t solve crises, just magnifies them.

It’s time to decentralize, reclaim national autonomy, and build systems that serve citizens - NOT global elites."

Nothing but the truth, it's the responsibility of everything government to take care of it's people and there is no buts.... It's kind of interesting seeing how the US taxpayers are abused globally.

Once again the evidence from the US clearly proved which approach was a failure, people whose political affiliation made it natural to trust the science had less problems and deaths during the pandemic, while those that had a political affiliation that demanded rejection of science had much more health problems and deaths, that is a failure.

Firstly, that's completely wrong. Secondly, which "science" are you referring to? The one that told people not to wear masks… until it did?

The one that claimed the "vaccines" stopped infection and transmission… until they didn’t?

The one that shut down schools, ruined small businesses, and fueled mental health crises - all while letting big-box stores and and "political" protests carry on as “essential”?

Real science welcomes scrutiny. What we got during COVID was a cult of technocracy: dissenting experts labeled “misinformation,” discussion shut down, and public health turned into a blunt instrument for political conformity.

Oh and sorry, the “pro-science” side (at least your version of it), had its own death toll, from vaccine injuries, delayed treatments, and policy-induced damage. Sorry, but you don’t get to just wave away those costs.

Nothing but the truth

Actually, as demonstrated by the arguments, nothing even remotely related to the truth. No argument has been made to demonstrate any kind of centralization. The US taxpayers reaped the consequences of its soft power for many decades, and the difference is going to be shocking now that the US gave up and left the world to be convinced by other powers.

Firstly, that's completely wrong. Secondly, which "science" are you referring to? The one that told people not to wear masks… until it did?

When you claim something is wrong, but can't make any argument to prove it, that means you are accepting it is not wrong. And the science is the method that depends completely on evidence, when there was no evidence of benefit from the use of masks then it was invalid to make that recommendation, as soon as the evidence of benefit came then science improved the recommendations, that is what happens with scientific advancement since always, people don't used vaccines antibiotics and transplants from the beginning, everything is based on evidence of benefit. What you misleadingly call "flip flopping" in reality is called progress.

The one that claimed the "vaccines" stopped infection and transmission… until they didn’t?

No, because that is still a false claim you like to repeat without ever being able to prove the actual scientists made this claim. What the actual scientists said was that the vaccine was extremely likely to reduce infection and transmission, and this is completely true, corroborated with data from millions of vaccinated people.

Real science welcomes scrutiny

Repeating false claims is not scrutiny, is simply being in denial of the reality. There was no cult, the evidence is what proved the measures were correct. If not, what is what make republicans in the US becoming sick more often, complicate more often, die more often? Democrats were in the same conditions, just trusted the science based measures more, which obviously helped. There are very few things that more clearly prove the value of the measures.

Sorry, but you don’t get to just wave away those costs.

The one trying to wave away the costs of the pandemic is you, when the measures have more benefits than costs then the problems can validly be attributed to the pandemic, not the measures.

World Health Organization looks ahead to life without U.S.

That is a good thing. The US should not fund this political activist organization. Let China finance them.

That is a good thing. The US should not fund this political activist organization. Let China finance them.

It may be better for the world, that will find a new stability without the need to be subjected to a country that went scientifically rogue. Terribly bad for the US interests that had to be cultivated for decades and were lost when it accepted other powers had much more solvency to tempt developing countries to their side.

It may be better for the world, that will find a new stability without the need to be subjected to a country that went scientifically rogue. Terribly bad for the US interests that had to be cultivated for decades and were lost when it accepted other powers had much more solvency to tempt developing countries to their side.

What evidence? The ever-changing rules? The mask mandates that flipped overnight? The vaccines that “stopped transmission” until they didn’t? That wasn’t science. That was state-approved dogma - enforced by censorship, not data.

Not to mention, you and your side backed lockdowns that devastated mental health, destroyed small businesses, and crippled education. And now you act like that never happened. Where’s the evidence those measures saved more than they harmed? You don’t have any. ZERO.

Trust in science collapsed not because people “denied reality,” but because institutions demanded blind obedience while punishing real inquiry. Real science invites challenge. Cults punish it.

You didn’t “trust the science.” You trusted the narrative. Big difference.

"Trust the Science" is fallacious from the start. It builds a dogma atop an appeal to authority. The group attempting to be that authority is the WHO. The US voters made it very clear in the recent election they don't want leaders willing to sign over their ability to self govern to the global pharma goons at the WHO.

What evidence? The ever-changing rules? The mask mandates that flipped overnight? The vaccines that “stopped transmission” until they didn’t? That wasn’t science. That was state-approved dogma - enforced by censorship, not data.

These claims you make were already debunked

When you claim something is wrong, but can't make any argument to prove it, that means you are accepting it is not wrong. And the science is the method that depends completely on evidence, when there was no evidence of benefit from the use of masks then it was invalid to make that recommendation, as soon as the evidence of benefit came then science improved the recommendations, that is what happens with scientific advancement since always, people don't used vaccines antibiotics and transplants from the beginning, everything is based on evidence of benefit. What you misleadingly call "flip flopping" in reality is called progress.

No, because that is still a false claim you like to repeat without ever being able to prove the actual scientists made this claim. What the actual scientists said was that the vaccine was extremely likely to reduce infection and transmission, and this is completely true, corroborated with data from millions of vaccinated people.

When you just repeat them even when the arguments that debunk them are still here unchallenged you are accepting you could not defend your claims and are accepting them to be false.

Not to mention, you and your side backed lockdowns that devastated mental health, destroyed small businesses, and crippled education

Also debunked by arguments you can't even address, much less refute.

The one trying to wave away the costs of the pandemic is you, when the measures have more benefits than costs then the problems can validly be attributed to the pandemic, not the measures.

Repetition instead of counter arguments only reveal you already understand you are wrong, that is why you don't even make an effort to defend your claims, just repeat them even after being falsified.

Trust in science collapsed not because people “denied reality,” but because institutions demanded blind obedience while punishing real inquiry. Real science invites challenge. Cults punish it.

Then why the "collapse" happened only on the people that follow certain political party in one country and not in the world in general? the same recommendations were made in Japan, but since the population has a much higher scientific literacy there was no problem and there is no such collapse, it also made it much easier to save as much people as possible with the measures since there was no political party using antiscientific bias to manipulate the population as in the US.

"Trust the Science" is fallacious from the start

Not at all, when the method shows results and advantages over antiscientific denialism or willing ignorance it is terribly easy to trust it. And by definition it contradicts a dogma, evidence can change a consensus, the problem is antiscientific people trying to change the consensus based on personal profit in absence of evidence, or worse, with evidence that contradict what they want to push.

There is a valid appeal to authority, when the authority is actually relevant on the topic and its position is based on actual objective evidence. Pretending this is invalid is the favorite excuse of antiscientific propaganda groups, that pretend that whatever they want to impose is as valid as the best available conclusion by scientific authorities just because they like that invalid alternative.

The US voters made it very clear in the recent election they don't want leaders willing to sign over their ability to self govern to the global pharma goons at the WHO

Nobody has to sign over their ability to self govern, that is a false claim being pushed by international pharmaceutical companies to manipulate the public. What the US voter made clear is that their priorities are attacking minorities even if that means abandoning everything that made the US a world power in the first place, from expert use of soft power to scientific innovation. Consequences of that choice are already being seen now, and will be more profound in the near future.

Not at all, when the method shows results and advantages over antiscientific denialism or willing ignorance it is terribly easy to trust it. And by definition it contradicts a dogma, evidence can change a consensus, the problem is antiscientific people trying to change the consensus based on personal profit in absence of evidence, or worse, with evidence that contradict what they want to push.

The method “shows results” - which results? The lockdown-induced mental health crisis? The skyrocketing excess deaths post-vaccine rollout? The collapsing trust in public institutions? Or the part where the “experts” reversed themselves on every major issue - masks, transmission, immunity - and then pretended they hadn’t?

You say real science contradicts dogma - yet you defend a system that crushed dissent, censored experts, and treated every challenge to the narrative as heresy. You rail against “anti-scientific denialism,” but never question how the so-called consensus was enforced: not through open debate, but through coercion, blacklisting, and manipulated data. You praise evidence - as long as it fits your conclusion. When it doesn’t? Suddenly it's “misinformation.”

And sorry buddy, your appeal to authority falls FLAT. Authority is only valid if it's transparent, accountable, and open to challenge. What we got was a cartel of bureaucrats, Pharma-funded mouthpieces, and tech-aligned censors telling the public to shut up and OBEY.

Science welcomes competing hypotheses. You seem to want to ban them.

What you're defending isn't evidence-based medicine - it's narrative enforcement. And the worst part? You call it objective while aligning with power, profit, and propaganda.

The method “shows results” - which results? The lockdown-induced mental health crisis? The skyrocketing excess deaths post-vaccine rollout? The collapsing trust in public institutions? Or the part where the “experts” reversed themselves on every major issue - masks, transmission, immunity - and then pretended they hadn’t?

Collapsing trust in public institutions is a result of the right-wing pushing that narrative along and undermining confidence in public institutions with complete lies and fabrications.

Yes, this was a completely new experience for everyone, dealing with a new, highly transmissible virus. We knew the vaccine worked and could save lives (which it overwhelmingly did) Experts did their best to give new guidelines (in terms of masks, social distancing, and who needs the vaccine the most) as we got more information and as the virus spread and as we started to understand it better. You know what that’s called? Transparency.

You know what would be irresponsible and deadly? Telling people: “don’t worry about it, take off your masks and open everything up and let the virus spread. Don’t listen to the medical experts who are trying to save your lives. Take this other drug that has been researched by an overwhelming number of medical professionals who agree that it won’t actually prevent anything and is in fact dangerous.”

Science welcomes competing hypotheses. You seem to want to ban them.

What you're defending isn't evidence-based medicine - it's narrative enforcement. And the worst part? You call it objective while aligning with power, profit, and propaganda.

Science DOES welcome competing hypotheses. That’s why science operates on a consensus. Not just on one single person’s research or a group of fringe quacks pushing snake oil.

Science is: can this effect be consistent and replicated by anyone? Are the risks understood and low enough to be an acceptable cost for the benefit?

Science isn’t: some discredited guy says “I claim this unproven, unchecked thing is gonna magically cure the disease and everything will be perfect, so don’t worry about it.”

It’s also not: “I don’t like the answer so I’m just gonna ignore what I should do.”

Others have suggested this might be a time for an even broader overhaul, rather than continuity under a reshuffled hierarchy of backers.

> "Does WHO need all its committees? Does it need to be publishing thousands of publications each year?” said Anil Soni, chief executive of the WHO Foundation, an independent fund-raising body for the agency.

> He said the changes had prompted a re-examination of the agency's operations, including whether it should be focussed on details like purchasing petrol during emergencies

They could ask Elon to help them with the cuts

Yes, this was a completely new experience for everyone, dealing with a new, highly transmissible virus. We knew the vaccine worked and could save lives (which it overwhelmingly did) Experts did their best to give new guidelines (in terms of masks, social distancing, and who needs the vaccine the most) as we got more information and as the virus spread and as we started to understand it better. You know what that’s called? Transparency.

Really? Which vaccines are you talking about? Because the ones rolled out globally did NOT stop infection, did NOT stop transmission, and did NOT reliably reduce severity across all demographics. That’s not some "conspiracy" - that’s straight from Pfizer and Moderna execs under OATH, long after the public was told the OPPOSITE.

Did you miss the part where we were promised protection? “Get vaccinated and you won’t get COVID!!!” "Safe AND effective!" Were they just misunderstandings? NO, those were the official lines, repeated endlessly by politicians, health agencies, and media, all while censoring anyone who dared to question it.

Sorry to say, but you fell hook, line, and sinker for the most aggressively marketed pharmaceutical product in modern history. And, unfortunately, now you’re defending the aftermath like none of it fell apart.

Amazing how many people are unable to undestand the importance of a World wide organization.

Aparently for many the notion of sovereignty going along with being part of WHO, WB, UN, Red Cross, etc., is impossible.

To those I say, if a country loses sovereingnty by forming part of WHO, then a person loses its personal right by having a citizenship of a country?

XCAndtheband

Today 02:39 pm JST

Science welcomes competing hypotheses. You seem to want to ban them.

> What you're defending isn't evidence-based medicine - it's narrative enforcement. And the worst part? You call it objective while aligning with power, profit, and propaganda.

> Science DOES welcome competing hypotheses. That’s why science operates on a consensus.

Science does not operate on a concensus.

Funding doesn't mean much if it's backed by people who don't believe in medical science.

Even if the current administration were to offer funding, they'd probably make it dependent on things like using leeches to draw blood samples, and the official adoption of phrenology.

The money may be an issue, but in terms of medical science the WHO is losing nothing with the US out of the picture. We have turned science illiteracy into a badge of honor.

The next time there is a major epidemic in the US, it's not going to be a pretty sight.

The method “shows results” - which results? The lockdown-induced mental health crisis? The skyrocketing excess deaths post-vaccine rollout? The collapsing trust in public institutions? Or the part where the “experts” reversed themselves on every major issue - masks, transmission, immunity - and then pretended they hadn’t?

Your claims are still debunked, I can keep copy pasting the debunked arguments every time you keep repeating them.

Again, the very clear example of the US is there, the method save lives from democrats, and left republicans to die importantly more, this is undeniable evidence it works even if you refuse to accept it an make baseless claims that the costs are not a consequence of the pandemic instead of the measures.

You say real science contradicts dogma - yet you defend a system that crushed dissent, censored experts, and treated every challenge to the narrative as heresy. 

No, that is false, there was a lot of discussion about dissenting views and challenges, the problem is that you wanted invalid dissent (based on repeating false claims) and illogical challenges (based on impossible conspiracy theories) to be considered on the same importance as actual scientific arguments and challenges, science improved a lot, even with the example that you used of the masks, the consensus at first was that there was no evidence of them being useful, but dissenting scientists presented valid evidence of efficacy and the consensus changed. The ones being censored and ignored where the ones that instead of presenting evidence just repeated the same claims and expected them to be just believed, that is antiscientific.

And sorry buddy, your appeal to authority falls FLAT

It does not, you have made no argument that demonstrate this, just claiming that there is an impossible global conspiracy hiding evidence which is why you can never prove what you claim. That is not an argument is an excuse for not having one.

Science welcomes competing hypotheses. You seem to want to ban them.

No, that is not true, what you want is to impose the hypotheses you like even when they were debunked by evidence. Your is the position that is antiscientific.

They could ask Elon to help them with the cuts

And waste much more than what is saved while destroying the functionality? that is like saying that you should consider amputating a hand instead of curing a broken finger, it does "solve" the problem much faster, but leaves everything worse than doing nothing.

*Really? Which vaccines are you talking about? Because the ones rolled out globally did NOT stop infection, did NOT stop transmission, and did NOT reliably reduce severity across all demographics. *

Still a false claim, the experts clearly said the vaccines would reduce infection transmission and importantly reduce severity, the covid vaccines did all these things and more. And yes, your claims are a huge conspiracy the moment you can't find even one institution of medical science to support them and have to claim all institutions in the whole world are hiding this, this is not believable.

I mean, you keep saying the experts said vaccines would completely stop covid, but when challenged to present this you never bring anything, this clearly shows you keep trying to impose false claims to support what you believe.

Science does not operate on a concensus.

Yes it does,

https://skepticalscience.com/explainer-scientific-consensus.shtml

Not knowing about something is a very poor argument to prove that something does not exist.

Did you miss the part where we were promised protection? "Get vaccinated and you won’t get COVID!!!"

I don't recall ever being told that. I remember being advised to get vaccinated and reduce the chance of getting Covid and reduce the severity of the illness if I did get it. I did get vaccinated and I did get Covid. It wasn't severe.

virusrex

Today 03:05 pm JST

Science does not operate on a concensus.

Yes it does,

https://skepticalscience.com/explainer-scientific-consensus.shtml

Not knowing about something is a very poor argument to prove that something does not exist.

Science operates on scientific principles.

Concensus of opinions is a recent invention sold to idiots.

*Really? Which vaccines are you talking about? Because the ones rolled out globally did NOT stop infection, did NOT stop transmission, and did NOT reliably reduce severity across all demographics. That’s not some "conspiracy" - that’s straight from Pfizer and Moderna execs under OATH, long after the public was told the OPPOSITE.*

So, I’m trying to find a more direct and widely viewed source, if you’ve got any links or sources, I’d be happy to see where we were promised that the vaccine would stop infection, stop transmission, and reduce severity across all demographics. I did however find this link to a Pfizer press release from July 2021 that says: “The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may not protect all vaccine recipients.” And also details who shouldn’t get the vaccine, that there isn’t sufficient evidence yet to properly determine the effects of the vaccine on some groups, and also, the risks that the vaccine may pose to certain people. I encourage you to read it.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-provide-us-government-additional-200

I mean this with no malice, but you not being informed well enough about the subject, does not mean that you can’t trust the public health institutions or medical experts.

Science does not operate on a concensus.

Yes, it does.

Science operates on scientific principles.

And for things where line of investigation reaches the same conclusions this develop in a consensus.

Concensus of opinions is a recent invention sold to idiots.

No, it is not, is is a perfectly valid consequence of the scientific method that people without knowledge about the topic tend to misunderstand (or misrepresent for personal profit) while the scientific institutions clearly say this is valid.

I mean I can keep referencing scientific institutions supporting the concept of scientific consensus

https://www.cma.ca/healthcare-for-real/how-do-health-experts-reach-scientific-consensus

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/

https://www.ces.fau.edu/nasa/introduction/scientific-inquiry/how-do-scientists-collaborate-and-reach-consensus.php

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2

Nameless people claiming the scientific institutions of the world are just idiots is not exactly a convincing argument, it is simply much more likely that the person thinking this is just wrong, not the scientific community of the world talking about their field of expertise.

“Actually, as demonstrated by the arguments, nothing even remotely related to the truth. No argument has been made to demonstrate any kind of centralization. The US taxpayers reaped the consequences of its soft power for many decades, and the difference is going to be shocking now that the US gave up and left the world to be convinced by other powers.”

That is a redundant argument, go try convincing those overtaxed American families with it about the so called soft powers. We love peace and power through strength not bending over to the global elitism.

The WHO bungled COVID from the start - slow to act but very quick to parrot the Chinese COMMUNIST Party, and incapable of offering clear, timely guidance. This was the beginning of the end - poor leadership and bureaucratic failure on a global scale.

Bottom line is, sovereign nations must set their own health policies. The idea that unelected officials in Geneva should dictate public health to the entire world is absurd and dangerous. Centralized power is never a good thing, as it doesn’t solve crises, just magnifies them.

It’s time to decentralize, reclaim national autonomy, and build systems that serve citizens - NOT global elites.

Mic drop! 100% correct!

I don't recall ever being told that. I remember being advised to get vaccinated and reduce the chance of getting Covid and reduce the severity of the illness if I did get it.

You don’t recall being told that?Because the entire world was flooded with that promise — not just from politicians, but from health officials, media outlets, and pharmaceutical conglomerates themselves.

Joe Biden: “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations.”

Rochelle Walensky (CDC Director): “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus... they don’t get sick.”

Anthony Fauci: “When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected.”

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla: “It is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19.”

CNN, NYT, BBC, and every mainstream outlet: repeated for months that vaccines stop transmission and infection.

Those weren’t personal interpretations. They were core selling points pushed globally — repeated until dissent was treated as misinformation.

And when people got vaccinated — and still got COVID — the story changed overnight. “No one ever said it stops infection!” LOL Yes, they did. Constantly. Loudly. And with absolute certainty.

Sorry, I don't think it's that you don’t remember. It’s that now, with the narrative in pieces, it’s easier to pretend it never happened. But millions remember. Because they were coerced, fired, banned, and blamed - for refusing to believe exactly what you're now claiming was never said.

I did get vaccinated and I did get Covid. It wasn't severe.

Good for you. I DIDN'T get take the vaccine, and when I got COVID, it was even less severe. No side effects, no risk of myocarditis, no need to gamble on a rushed product backed by liability shields.

Plenty of discerning, health-conscious people made the same decision - took care of their health, boosted natural immunity, and trusted risk-benefit analysis over political pressure.

I'm genuinely sorry you felt the need to rolled the dice on an experimental shot for a virus with a 99.7%+ survival rate in your age group - and still got sick. I trusted actual science and avoided both the illness and the pharmaceutical side effects.

“What evidence? The ever-changing rules? The mask mandates that flipped overnight? The vaccines that “stopped transmission” until they didn’t? That wasn’t science. That was state-approved dogma - enforced by censorship, not data.”

Jay, don’t forget some people are still in masks, I’m not expert but I can’t stop wondering how a mask stops a virus in the air. If the mask is for pollen allergies that’s understandable.

That is a redundant argument

No it is not, saying that arguments proving something remain unless you refute them is in no way redundant.

go try convincing those overtaxed American families with it about the so called soft powers. 

Why? do you think the soft power did not have any role in the privileged position of the US? Because that would only betray a serious lack of knowledge of the many benefits that it had for the US and its population, ignoring something is not an argument to prove it does not exist

We love peace and power through strength not bending over to the global elitism.

Ah the christian value of subjugation by violence and war, not really something that many people identify with, at least not so openly.

And also, by rejecting being in a position of power against internationals pharmaceutical companies you are actually supporting that the US bends over the global elites so they can impose anything they want, at least in the US, not so much on the rest of the world that will resist thanks to accords.

You don’t recall being told that?Because the entire world was flooded with that promise — not just from politicians, but from health officials, media outlets, and pharmaceutical conglomerates themselves.

Yet the only examples you can find are from non-experts or from a communication that explicitly put the declaration in the context of results that prove an important REDUCTION of the risks.

This does more to refute (again) your claim than support it.

More specifically:

You claim

*Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla**: “It is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19.”*

Actually what he said was

Our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa.

See the huge difference? actively misrepresenting what people actually said to mislead people is highly dishonest,

Those weren’t personal interpretations

No, they are clearly misleading twisting of the declarations made with the purpose of manipulating people.

And when people got vaccinated — and still got COVID — the story changed overnight. “No one ever said it stops infection!” LOL Yes, they did. Constantly. Loudly. And with absolute certainty.

As proved this is false, yet you keep repeating it in every article even when it is debunked every single time, if this does not betray an active effort to rewrite what actually happened I don't know what would do.

*Plenty of discerning, health-conscious people made the same decision - took care of their health, boosted natural immunity, and trusted risk-benefit analysis over political pressure.*

And were wrong, demonstrably scientifically. All kinds of people make irrational choices all the time.

I trusted actual science and avoided both the illness and the pharmaceutical side effects.

You still have not been able to bring even one institution of science that supports your views, that means you are against science.

Scientists are expected to do their background research from credible journals only. If someone has a theory flying in the face of existing research and presents no research of their own, they will be rightly ignored.

Mic drop! 100% correct!

Except of course on all the different ways this is incorrect,

Jay, don’t forget some people are still in masks, I’m not expert but I can’t stop wondering how a mask stops a virus in the air. If the mask is for pollen allergies that’s understandable.

This is a positive development, accepting your opinion is based on not understanding basic concepts is much better than blindly assuming the experts of the world are wrong and you must be right.

A big hint, viruses are not floating around in the air by themselves, they are in droplets of liquid that are efficiently stopped by non-woven masks, this applies to all respiratory pathogens, which explain why there was a reduced incidence of many diseases while isolation measures were strongly in place.

So, I’m trying to find a more direct and widely viewed source, if you’ve got any links or sources, I’d be happy to see where we were promised that the vaccine would stop infection, stop transmission, and reduce severity across all demographics. 

How much time do you have?

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-government-and-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-46a270ce0f681caa7e4143e2ae9a0211

https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3

https://www.axios.com/2021/05/19/fauci-mask-covid-cdc-guidance

https://fortune.com/2021/04/01/its-official-vaccinated-people-dont-transmit-covid-19/

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56904993

And saved the best till last:

"Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus STOPS with EVERY vaccinated person!!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj6EkqfCRbA

Jay

Today 03:34 pm JST

So, I’m trying to find a more direct and widely viewed source, if you’ve got any links or sources, I’d be happy to see where we were promised that the vaccine would stop infection, stop transmission, and reduce severity across all demographics.

> How much time do you have?

> https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-health-government-and-politics-coronavirus-pandemic-46a270ce0f681caa7e4143e2ae9a0211

> https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3

> https://www.axios.com/2021/05/19/fauci-mask-covid-cdc-guidance

> https://fortune.com/2021/04/01/its-official-vaccinated-people-dont-transmit-covid-19/

> https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/cdc-data-suggests-vaccinated-dont-carry-cant-spread-virus.html

> https://www.bbc.com/news/health-56904993

> And saved the best till last:

> "Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus STOPS with EVERY vaccinated person!!!"

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj6EkqfCRbA

Can you quote directly from any of those sources pls?

Of course I won't be surprised if any of those sources actually say what you say they say, sensationalized reporting has been the norm for a long time.

But a direct quote would be a great start

*Joe Biden, Rochelle Walensky (CDC Director), Anthony Fauci Pfizer, CEO Albert Boulez, CNN, NYT, BBC, and every mainstream outlet**: repeated for months that vaccines stop transmission and infection.*

*Those weren’t personal interpretations. They were core selling points pushed globally — repeated until dissent was treated as misinformation*

I would differentiate between people who aren’t medical professionals, and people who actually ARE medical professionals giving statements on the vaccine. Obviously, someone who isn’t a professional will overstate things. And it is totally fair to say “we shouldn’t overstate something.” Especially in the case of medical professionals. However, on a general knowledge on vaccines and medicine overall, we all (should) know that NO single medicine is 100% effective. That should be an obvious point, though I recognize that not everyone will be aware of this due to lack of education, etc.

Despite this, the distinction that you’re making is: “we were promised the vaccine would completely cure COVID and completely stop it from spreading and we would never get it” vs the reality which is “this vaccine will help build an immunity to this particular un-mutated virus and reduce the chance of it spreading”. The second version which you’re touting as the worst possible thing in the world, is still a faaaaaaar more preferable and safer scenario that the “non-vaxxed” alternative.

How much time do you have?

First link, Biden is not a scientific authority of any kind.

Second link, "The CDC concluded, based on those results, that Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines are roughly 90% effective...But more data is still necessary to say so definitively"

Third link, is specifically saying that vaccination do NOT means removal of a mask mandate for everybody.

Fourth. "Vaccinated people can still be infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and suffer the symptoms of COVID-19, though this happens at a much reduced rate and severity,"

Fifth. is the same declaration as the second and fourth link and clearly reads "Following a single dose of either vaccine, the participants’ risk of infection was reduced by 80 percent, and that figure jumped to 90 percent after the second dose."

Sixth, from the headline "Covid: One dose of vaccine halves transmission"

And your last link is once again from someone that is not even remotely a scientific authority.

So you have proved that your claim is false, reports clearly said vaccines were not absolutely perfect in every way as you previously claimed and instead provided proper context, and the "experts" that supposedly contradicted this were not experts at all.

You don’t recall being told that?Because the entire world was flooded with that promise — not just from politicians, but from health officials, media outlets, and pharmaceutical conglomerates themselves.

I'm pretty sure the document I received from the NHS in the UK didn't guarantee the vaccine would prevent me getting Covid. (It was about reducing the risks.) I do recall hospitals being overwhelmed with patients, mainly older people, which reduced treatment for other problems. I do recall a man in my street dying from Covid. I do recall a lot of uncertainty about the appropriate measures to take. And I do recall a few people who seemed very certain that they knew everything.

I was hoping you're not just posting your beliefs and then throwing tons of links for people to painstakingly dig through

The hospitals here in Japan did not say the COVID-19 vaccine would prevent it, only to lessen the effects of it. It wasn't a compulsory vaccine and stopped after the first two. We never had COVID.

How much time do you have?

Yeah unfortunately, as virusrex has already pointed out, if you actually read these articles, they actually prove our point that the professionals had clearly explained what the vaccine actually would do and did not GUARANTEE 100% protection from the virus, or that it would completely prevent the spread of the virus.

Thanks, virusrex for getting all those rebuttals to the links, faster than I could!

“This is a positive development, accepting your opinion is based on not understanding basic concepts is much better than blindly assuming the experts of the world are wrong and you must be right. 

A big hint, viruses are not floating around in the air by themselves, they are in droplets of liquid that are efficiently stopped by non-woven masks, this applies to all respiratory pathogens, which explain why there was a reduced incidence of many diseases while isolation measures were.”

If the so called scientists are still debating and arguing about the origin of Covid-19 how can you be sure of stopping it ?

If the so called scientists are still debating and arguing about the origin of Covid-19 how can you be sure of stopping it ?

You don’t need to know the origin of a virus to learn how to combat it.