Jeff Childers Sunday Pay per View :

Another word for “shake-up” is “a reckoning.” In other words, Trump sent a message this week with his picks for HHS, Surgeon General, CDC, and FDA. That message penetrated, loudly and clearly. Considering the pregnant possibilities of Trump’s health nominations, the Times lamented, “Together, they are a clear repudiation of business as usual.”

Unsurprisingly, since the Times has the deep state-possessed, sock-puppet scientists on speed dial, it rounded up their wailings and lamentations as well. Proving that even a blind, rabies-free pet squirrel can sometimes find a nut of truth, pediatric vaccine-pusher and FDA jab-approver Dr. Paul Offit mourned, “What they’re saying when they make these appointments is that ‘we don’t trust the people who are there’; I’m very, very worried.”

He should be worried. We don’t trust the people who are there. I’d go much further: were I a juror on the Covid Nuremberg trials for crimes against humanity, I would vote for Offit to at least get a life sentence. Straight to jail! But he was just following orders…

CLIP: Offit explains ‘either you were on the bus or off the bus’ and that’s why he agreed to lie about most people needing mandated shots when they obviously didn’t (2:28)

snip

Dr. Paul Offit Says Fauci Knew Not Everyone Needed the COVID Vaccine But Recommended It Anyway

“I said, ‘Tony, am I wrong?’ He said, ‘No, you’re right. We should target high risk groups. He said the problem is the minute you say that, it becomes a nuanced message. And a nuanced message is a garbled message. If you really want to make sure those groups get vaccinated, then you recommend it for everybody.’

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1859951739463516330

Speaking of just following orders, sold-out U. Minn. covid doc Michael Osterholm sobbed that some government scientists could be fired, just for doing their jobs during the pandemic. He can see it coming. “Everything that we have so far points to some radical changes that are about to occur,” Dr. Osterholm rued.

Never mind radical change; when your livelihood depends on captured government agencies, any change is bad for business. The days of making a good living by helping enforce government narratives might be coming to a merciful close, and these overpaid grifters are frightened. Doctors like Offit and Osterholm might even have to start working again, like by discovering stuff and doing real science. Real science is much harder than playing the propaganda parrot, which doesn’t require any thinking at all.

Not everyone the Times quoted is as deeply in love with the status quo as much as Paul Awfful. For instance, epidemiologist and former Harvard professor Dr. Michael Mina first said Trump was “playing with fire with the shake-ups and choices,” but he still agreed that “at this point change is needed.”

In other words, a little playing with fire is a good idea right now. Dr. Mina said the country’s public health agencies were too slow, too bureaucratic, and too arrogant, calling the current slate of leaders “unwilling to engage with the public’s concerns.”

It was gratifying that the Times included one counterpoint in its article. It was gratifying that the Times evaluated Trump’s picks the same way we did: as hired change agents. But it was most gratifying that the Times finally admitted its alliance with Big Pharma, accidentally, in a paragraph celebrating the drug-pushing corporations racing to rescue their mutual Establishment patrons:

(That’s what she said.) Thanks for letting us know how much you depend on big pharma. We’ll remember the Times’ enthusiastic embrace when big pharma begins its hard pushback. And we won’t lay still for it, this time.

For the life of me, I can’t imagine why so many people think the nation’s health agencies need radical change, except that maybe it has something to do with headlines like this one, from Friday’s Daily Mail:

Well, that won’t be good for business.

The drug is Merck’s Singulair, generically montelukast sodium. Not only is it commonly prescribed for asthma, but maybe even more commonly for everyday allergies, including for kids. Tragically, since 1998, 82 pediatric suicides have been linked to the drug just in the FDA’s adverse event tracker, and the drug has also been linked through any number of published studies to depression, anxiety, agitation, nightmares and ‘full blown psychosis’.

By 2017, Merck’s montelukast sales blew past $50 billion.

By 2019, thousands of reports of psychiatric episodes, including dozens of suicides, had piled up related to patients taking the drug. In March, 2020, the FDA quietly added a ‘black box warning,’ which is the highest side-effect warning the agency can require, indicating the possibility of death. Prescription levels were unaffected by the FDA’s black box, in spite of the fact that prescribers are legally obligated to inform patients about the risks.

What could explain the fact that nothing changed after the black box warning? Patients don’t care? Or is the black box system broken?

On Wednesday, amidst the news of Trump’s RFK nomination, researchers on an unpublished study along with FDA staff presented findings to a very “limited audience” at the American College of Toxicology’s meeting in Austin, Texas. The surprising new data showed “significant quantities” of montelukast building up in patients’ brains which, needless to say, is just where you don’t want your chronic breathing medication building up.

According to Reuters, several lawsuits are already underway against Merck for concealing the brain connection, which should have shown up on the drug’s pre-approval tests. The FDA, unsurprisingly, was apparently useless. Useless both during approval, and later as thousands of patient reports accumulated while arrogant FDA bureaucrats obstinately ignored them.

Merck told Reuters it stands by its drug’s safety profile. The FDA said the current labeling is legal, and sufficient, since there is not enough evidence for any limits, drug restrictions, or any kind of ban, such as against use in children. So Merck’s cash registers continue ringing for the time being.

I wonder whether this surprising transparency about the FDA’s secret study could be another Trump Effect. What do you think?