During an interview at Washington University in St. Louis earlier in March, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky made a number of stunning admissions with respect to the COVID jabs, among them being that she relied a bit too heavily on CNN’s reporting of jab efficacy.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content, Become a PREMIUM USER

On March 3rd, Walensky was interviewed by Washington University co-director of Division of Infectious Diseases Dr. William G. Powderly, during which Walensky said that health officials were naively approaching the COVID jabs as being a sort of “cure all” when they were initially rolling out.

Furthermore, Walensky proclaimed that the science is hardly “settled” with respect to the COVID shots, describing the science as being “gray” as opposed to the “black and white” terms many officials and pro-jab pundits have touted since the shots went public.

But Walensky also admitted that she – like many others – clung on to the clamoring from CNN about these COVID shots regarding their implied efficacy.

“I can tell you where I was when the CNN feed came that it was 95% effective, the vaccine. So many of us wanted to be hopeful, so many of us wanted to say, okay, this is our ticket out, right, now we’re done. So I think we had perhaps too little caution and too much optimism for some good things that came our way. I really do. I think all of us wanted this to be done.”

Walensky noted that when the jabs were being pushed, “nobody said waning,” nor were there candid discussions held during the rollout about what if “it’s not as potent against the next variant.”

Former New York Times writer Alex Berenson responded in an article about these comments made by Walensky, writing that she “told the world that she did not know that variants might reduce the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines.”

** Join Our Community **

Berenson injected a bit of sarcasm in his response article when adding, “She’s right. Nobody could possibly have known variants might be a problem,” where he then shared a screenshot of a post he made on Twitter in January of 2021 (before he was permanently suspended from the platform) where he called out that variants would indeed be a problem with the COVID jab.

If The 2024 Election Came Down To Ron DeSantis And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | Who Would You Be Voting For?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from Red Voice Media, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

“The vaccines probably don’t work against at least one new variant and they’re going to want you to get vaccinated again next fall.”

Berenson concluded his piece with “The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man!” which is an obvious reference to an April 2021 article from The Atlantic that labeled Berenson as such.

<Support Our Efforts To Keep Truth Alive>

Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.