Has Rochelle Walensky Lied to Congress Multiple Times? If So, It's a Potentially Fatal Breach of Trust

Where's the Credible Evidence when she misrepresents events on only provides bluster instead of evidence from studies capable of answering questions?

In 2020, the world experienced a major crisis, which fortunately did not pose a significant threat to children, as it turned out to be comparable to seasonal “influenza disease” in severity. Despite the closing of schools, there was no proof that this action decreased transmission in the surrounding community.

Rochelle Walensky’s recent statements to Congress are problematic. She told Congress, for example, that the public expects the CDC to be more responsive when the next epidemic or pandemic starts. Actually, many of us expect them to fail again, and many hope for them to stand down altogether. She does not speak for those of us who hope that the CDC stays out of the way and allows real doctors to deal with the medical conditions. Their misuse of their inflated budget led to lockdowns and destroyed over 500,000 small businesses - permanently.

There are some major concerns about Rochelle Walensky's stated approach to vaccine recommendations. She does not appear to take into account the potential harms of vaccines, and CDC has published papers in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report - without peer review. To say the papers they publish in MMWR are questionable is being generous.

Recently, her statement that "vaccinated people do not carry the virus they do not get sick" was challenged by Congress and she claimed that it was accurate at the time, though the data never supported it. Her statement that all evidence showed vaccinated people do not transmit the virus was inaccurate. (See Children’s Health Defense Article: Did CDC Director Intentionally Lie to Congress? Or Is She Just That Misinformed?)

The fact is that Rochelle Walenski, director of the CDC, may are lying to Congress about her knowledge of public health and vaccines. She was a proponent of school closures, and the masking of young kids, and yet she based her position on these with no randomized control trials addressing these interventions. It may even be that she has not fully grasped the significant and central importance of randomized control trials.

From Children’s Health Defense:

“Another astonishing falsehood made by Walensky was her response to Congressman Clyde’s question about the Cochrane review which found that wearing face masks in the community ‘probably makes little to no difference’ in preventing viral transmission.

Walensky enthusiastically stated:

‘I think its notable, that the Editor-in-Chief of Cochrane, actually said that the summary of that review was [stumble] she retracted the summary of that review and said that it was inaccurate.’

However, the summary of the review was not retracted, nor have the authors of the review changed the language in the summary.”

Her claim that the Cochrane Review on masking was retracted, made in her statement to Congress, was inaccurate, misleading, and carried forward by the press.

Her recent comments show that she does not acknowledge there is genuine uncertainty in the medical community over whether a treatment, intervention, or vaccine will be beneficial. By presuming efficacy, this means that she does not appear to understand the concept of equipoise in clinical trials. (Another nod to Vinay Prasad for this call-out).

Walensky’s public, sworn statements have also revealed that she is grossly incompetent, and she has demonstrated a lack of understanding of evidence appraisal. Last year, she warned of a “pandemic of the UNvaccinated”, ignoring natural immunity until the bitter end.

Mandates are unjustified and CDC policies restrict children and overestimate children's deaths. Compulsion does not benefit the vaccinated person and the benefit does not outweigh autonomy when making healthcare decisions. Furthermore, the CDC should lose trust as its policies are unjustified and not thought through. This is evidenced by a paper analyzing the policy's success that was published in the CDC's journal, without peer review.

The advent of Operation Warp Speed during this critical period allowed for the expedited development of a vaccine. The trials were fraught with shortcuts. Vinay Prasad has pointed out repeatedly that the original trials for Pfizer and Moderna did not possess the capacity to swab the contacts of participants. Prasad advocates for randomly assigning kits to people for them to swab their family members as a viable opportunity to acquire accurate data. Furthermore, he thinks the primary endpoint of the study could have been overall survival in nursing home patients. Combined with Dr. Sin Lee and my messages on the need for the use of Sanger sequencing of clinical samples from patients to clinched accuracy into the data on efficacy would have been important. We had none of that.

It’s not as though we don’t have the tools to know the answers to CDC’s inaccurate and misleading claims.

Medical curricula do not emphasize evidence-based medicine, and instead focus on generating explanations they think fit the evidence best, not evidence from critical tests that disprove or support hypotheses. We need to reform how science is taught in our public schools, our colleges, our universities, and our medical schools. “Argument to the best evidence” is not conducive to fostering real understanding, leads to confirmation bias, and appeals to authority.

CDC and their allies could have conducted more rigorous research to determine if vaccinated people can transmit the virus, but we did not do that. Despite the CDC's immense budget, Walensky has not allocated any of the funds toward such studies.

Despite no studies, Walensky seems too certain of her answers. We should all find it difficult to understand how she can be so sure of her answers when she won’t even or perhaps can’t run a randomized control trial to address important questions.

The entire approach by Walensky is reminiscent of Fauci who came up with so many policy directives without a shred of evidence. When the risk of myocarditis was found to be highest after the second dose, physicians and scientists clamored to spread the doses out. Fauci fought against that position and lost. He had zero evidence that his position was superior, and there would have been no change if his magic spell had not been broken by his whiplashing and flip-flopping on masks and the clear evidence of lack of protection against transmission.

The COVID-19 mandates have always been a poor and unethical medical policy without just cause. Even knowing it could not prevent transmission, the fact that they continue to mandate makes it even more concerning. It is clear that the basis of the policy was never substantiated, and the wider implications were never taken into consideration. It appears that they are unwilling to accept fault, thus leading to a fatal breach of trust.

I’m a scholar. But I’m passionate about human pain & suffering. I cannot make this article any nicer, and those of you who know me, know that I’ve tried.

There’s also the biggest lie of them all: that the COVID-19 vaccine reduces serious COVID-19 and hospitalization relative to being unvaccinated. This is untrue because we don’t know: cases and deaths don’t count until 5 to 8 weeks after the first dose of the vaccine. The game of calling partially vaccinated individuals “unvaccinated” biases the results. On top of that, PCR was used to determine case status during the clinical trials, and we know they are fraught with false positives and false negatives.

These actions have sown deep-seated, well-earned distrust in CDC’s “science”. Or whatever CDC has been doing, which I labeled “Science-Like Activities” in 2015 in my book, “Cures vs. Profits”.

Walensky lied to Congress on at least three occasions in her statement, and there must be consequences for those misrepresentations.