Rear Adm. Erica G. Schwartz, MD, MPH, JD, the former Deputy U.S. Surgeon General (2019-2021) and former U.S. Coast Guard chief medical officer was confirmed as CDC director on August 5, 2026. Rand Paul voted in favor. Erica is a true believer in Vaccines and Testing and played a significant role during COVID under Trump
Only a week earlier, on July 29, Fauci gave testimony to Rand Pauls Senate committee, or more accurately listened to questions/speeches from Senators, with Rand Paul leading the way as he took the 5th. Besides the Origin/GOF him and other Republican Senators, especially Senator Moody were very concerned about COVID Policy such as lockdowns and the science behind masks, social distancing, etc. Only Senator Johnson seemed concerned about the safety.
Here is some of what Senator Paul said
Regarding the lockdowns, you argue that you did not personally issue every lockdown order, close every school or impose every mandate, but officials across the country invoked your authority to justify these decisions, and you presented your recommendations not as judgements open to debate but as dictates of science itself. Your own words demonstrate that you understood the influence you exercised.
On March 14th, 2020, you wrote that, “The task force recommendations were driven by me,” yourself, “Deb, and CDC.” The next day you wrote that you had convinced Mayor Bill de Blasio to close the New York City schools, so you were involved. That same night, Governor Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff told you that the Governor had decided to close California schools, bars, and restaurants after watching you on television. Presidents, governors, mayors, school boards, corporations and Congress all bear responsibility for the decisions they made.
The COVID lockdown, however, could never have been inflicted without you aiding and abetting the crime. Children lost years of education. Small businesses, built over a lifetime, disappeared. Patients delayed cancer screenings and other medical care. Families were separated from dying relatives. Workers were ordered to accept a medical procedure or lose their jobs. Worship assembly, employment, education, and travel were restricted in the name of science. While you did not impose every restriction, you used your public authority to justify them.
Two weeks earlier (July 15) , during her confirmation hearing Rand Paul had an opportunity to see where Erica G. Schwartz stood regarding Fauci’s Science and Policies as they related to handling of COVID
One might have expected Senator Paul to ask at least dome of the following questions
Did you support the 2020 lockdowns?
Were lockdowns effective?
Would you impose them again?
Did you support closing schools?
Were school closures justified?
Did you support mask mandates?
Were cloth masks effective?
Would you recommend mask mandates in another pandemic?
Did you believe the six-foot distancing rule was scientifically justified?
Did you believe COVID vaccine mandates for civilians were justified?
Did you personally advocate the federal employee/military COVID vaccine mandates?
Did you believe natural immunity should have changed vaccination policy?
Nada.
Paul’s questioning appears to have been built around a different issue: Who actually controls the CDC?
He was concerned that Kennedy could order the CDC to change vaccine recommendations and that a CDC director might simply comply.
That concern was shared by other senators. Bill Cassidy repeatedly asked Schwartz whether she would challenge Kennedy if he directed her to do something unsupported by science.
Schwartz’s answers emphasized that she would use science, evidence and transparency, but she stopped short of giving the categorical commitment Paul and some other senators wanted.
Paul subsequently made this a major criticism of her. Nothing can get in the way of these mRNA shots.
Schwartz was Deputy Surgeon General from 2019–April 2021.. Her federal role put her directly inside the national response. She managed the federal COVID testing effort and participated in Operation Warp Speed briefings. When it comes to COVID policies she seemingly was a ghost. Nothing on social media or media coverage. Would love yo see her texts and emails from this period
Its not only Senator Paul that dropped the ball. Senator Moody (Florida) who had some very good questions for Fauci also did not take the opportunity to pin Schwartz down on policy
Here is what she asked Fauci
On March 8th, 2020, you appeared on 60 Minutes to discuss the spread of COVID-19. You were specifically asked to clear up the confusion and misinformation surrounding masks. You told the American people, “Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with a mask.” The interviewer immediately stopped you and said, “Are you sure of it? Because people are listening really closely to this.” And instead of walking back or qualifying your statement in any way, you doubled down. “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better. It might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think it is. And often, there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with their mask. They keep touching their face.”….
Just a few weeks later, the CDC released its guidance recommending that Americans wear masks in public. You were asked to explain your original recommendation. You emphasized a very different consideration. You said, “Well, back then the critical issue was to save the masks for the people who really needed them because it was felt there was a shortage of masks.” So I want everybody to sit with that. The critical issue driving your initial recommendation to the American public was scarcity, logistics, not medical evidence. So when you told the American people there was no reason to wear a mask, what was your principal objective: giving them an honest assessment of the medical evidence or discouraging them from consuming a scare supply of masks?
Let’s talk about the six-foot distancing rule. In April 5th, 2020, an interview on CBS said, “Every time I get to that podium in the White House briefing room, I always essentially plead with people, ‘Please take a look at those very simple guidelines of physical separation,’ and they’re very, very clear. Physically separate six feet away.”
Yet when Congress finally asked you in 2024 what science supported that evidence, six-foot distance rule for COVID, you admitted you were not aware of any studies supporting it. Incredibly, you said the six-foot rule sort of just appeared and described it as an empiric decision that wasn’t based on data. That rule had real consequences. Schools didn’t open back up. Businesses didn’t open back up. Churches didn’t open back up. I could go on and on and on. And Americans were kept physically separated from one another during the most difficult moments of their lives. Many lost loved ones during that time. So Dr. Fauci, did you have any evidence to support a six-foot separation rule when you gave that advice to Americans?
Well, let’s look at the lockdowns then. By 2022, the consequences of prolonged COVID lockdowns on our children were clear from delayed development to social isolation, which is probably why you were asked in July 2022 whether you would recommend locking down schools again. And you said, “First of all, I didn’t recommend locking anything down,” but now we have your diary and it tells a very different story from the one you told the public. And I will quote, “I spoke with Bill de Blasio, the Mayor of NYC, and convinced him based on what I was saying publicly in my conversation tonight to close the NYC schools. He had already decided based on what I was saying on TV. I went on to tell him he should close the bars and restaurants in NYC and he said he would do this based on my recommendation.” You even said that you told the president, “We should shut the whole country down.”
When she had her opportunity to pin Schwartz down 2 weeks earlier she chose to give a monologue
Senator Moody-We appreciate you being here. Um it’s so important that we have great people uh in these roles. Um, it’s important that we have uh public health authorities that not only are prepared for disasters and pandemics, but can execute on their responsibilities in accordance with the Constitution, the first principle of government to protect people’s rights. And boy did every most every government official forget that when COVID hit and especially under the last administration although you know in Florida we tried to make every decision and uh to promote the health safety welfare of people through the lens of how do we also protect people’s rights and I’m
listening to some of them questioning today and I think it’s important that we talk about this because if you’ll remember there was a time when folks wanted to shut down, shut people up in their homes, shut down churches, shut down schools, shut down businesses. In fact, they shut down the cruise industry for almost a year and a half before I came in and we litigated and pushed back legally. But they used the CDC. I think they used an old quarantine law from forever ago.
You know, that’s a big deal to a lot of people in Florida. 60% of the nation’s cruises leave out of Florida. It affects a lot of jobs. And I think that there is this new almost political insanity especially in this kind of party that seems to be taking over the Democratic party.
Um I mean at one of their conventions the Democratic Socialists they call themselves although they are an extreme authoritarian group they want to control lives. Uh they required masks and this wasn’t like during COVID. This was just recently if you took a shot. Masks, social distancing, which by the way, when I was attorney general, I led a grand jury investigation which said that that was created out of thin air with no basis in science. Uh six-foot rule.
You had to have your COVID shot to go. Oh, and you had to have your booster shot within the last 12 months. This was just to attend the convention.
This is a party that says they promote their policies and their mandates and extreme central government control over every facet of your lives over individual autonomy and that should scare every American. I don’t care where you are on vaccines. I think that is a s symbolic argument and it is an important argument of in the narrowest of circumstances where you should force someone or have a mandate on someone.
You know, Florida led the litigation charge against mandate mandatory vaccines. They wanted to tell you what you put in your body. And yes, I think making someone choose service and country over autonomy and and individual liberty, that is a discussion we need to have.
And I hope you have good answers for that. Um, but l ask you, do you believe it’s the first principle of government?government is set up and should be and should be set up to effectuate protection of individual liberties first and foremost.
Yes or no? Is that why our country was established?
Dr. Schwarz.- Thank you, Senator Moody, and thank you for meeting with me and thank you for representing the great state of Florida. Uh l absolutely I I agree with that contention.
Senator Moody- And do you believe in your service as CDC director that you are going to have to make important decisions regarding health, but at all times you will have to be mindful of individual liberty.
Dr. Schwarz -I absolutely excuse me. I absolutely agree with that contention. Yes.
Senator Moody - And I think what we are seeing now in terms of what the insanity uh on the other side of the aisle in terms of the things that they want to mandate and cram down the throats of Americans and how much control of America they want. We have to be asking every nominee what they believe the purpose of government is because we are confronting now people that believe America should be something that it wasn’t meant to be. And we have to have good, strong, bold, courageous leaders taking on these jobs that understand the evolution of this country, the success of the country, and what it was built on, and why it exists, and why we have been so successful. So, thank you for taking on these roles.
Moody elaborated on the COVID-policy problems but she did not ask Schwartz to state whether she personally agreed or disagreed with those specific policies. Instead, she used those policies as the backdrop for a set of forward-looking questions about constitutional rights and individual liberty.
Moody did not ask:
“Did you support lockdowns?”
She didn’t ask:
“Did you support school closures?”
She didn’t ask:
“Did you support mask mandates?”
She didn’t ask:
“Did you support six-foot distancing?”
And she didn’t ask:
“Do you now believe those policies were wrong?”
Instead, she effectively asked:
“Do you agree with the constitutional principle that individual liberty must be considered when you exercise public-health authority?”
And Schwartz said yes, unequivocally, twice. She will consider it and do what she will do what the boss says (just like Fauci).
So Moody clearly communicated her own assessment of the COVID response to Schwartz. But she stops short of asking the obvious follow-up:
“Were you one of the public-health officials who supported those measures?”
That’s the missing question.
Why didn’t Moody follow up with Schwartz and ask whether she herself believed those specific COVID policies violated the individual-liberty principle she had just agreed to?
The obvious answer is that Schwartz likely supported those policies and could not lie under oath with incriminating emails and texts lurking. Confirming she supported those policies would torpedo her nomination chances. Moody and Paul and other Republicans helped her out by not asking the tough questions. Trump wants her, he gets her.
She believes in Vaccines and that’s the only thing certain Republican Senators and Trump care about, aside from Senator Johnson who did not ask any questions.
Democrats mostly voted no because they foolishly think RFK Jr will actually be able to stop Vaccine approvals and recommendations. Its most Fake Wrestling partisan theater
Folks, you are being played. Fauci was yelled at in the Senate then they turned around and approved Covid shot pusher Erica Schwartz as CDC Director and the FDA approved the mRNA flu shot. Johnson, Moody & Paul voted Yea and the margin was 2 votes.
Now lets talk about that Moderna Vaccine that was approved on same day Erica Schwartz was confirmed CDC Director.
https://www.fda.gov/media/194140/download?attachment
Unbelievable that this got approved. Vaccine effectiveness of mRNA-1010 is 26-27% in those over 50, and thats by excluding anyone coming down with flu in the first 14 days after the jab due to temporary immune deficiency like with the COVID jab
For some reason when they did the trial for 65 and over they used a Comparator vaccine that was not recommended by CDC so they could not get Traditional Approval but instead had to seek Accelerated Approval which is conditional on a Confirmatory Trial while it is being marketed. Seems rather suspicious to me.
But here was the kicker
A numerical imbalance was observed for deaths coded to the MedDRA preferred term (PT) “death (without further specification)”: 23 events in the mRNA-1010 group versus 9 events in the SD/HD comparator group. When pooled with the related PTs of “sudden death” and “sudden cardiac death,” this imbalance was more pronounced: 29 events in the mRNA-1010 group versus 12 in the SD/HD comparator group.
But they decided it was ok to ignore that because of
….the absence of clustering within the 28-day postvaccination window (3 unspecified deaths in the mRNA-1010 group vs. 2 in the SD/HD comparator within 28 days), balance in all-cause mortality, and the high prevalence of serious comorbidities among decedents, the review team assesses a causal relationship between mRNA-1010 and the observed excess of unspecified-cause deaths as unlikely. Nevertheless, definitive causal assessment is precluded by the absence of autopsies in all 29 affected mRNA-1010 recipients and lack of systematic cause-of-death adjudication.
These limitations represent residual uncertainty that cannot be resolved from existing trial data.
Lets start with the absence of clustering within the 28-day postvaccination window . Why is 28 days a magic number when they have no idea based on the study as for how long mRNA keeps producing the antigenic protein?. They also did not appear to do any biodistribution study, and did not measure troponin levels to see if the jabs caused subclinical heart muscle damage
The second point is interesting. Remember, a saline placebo was not used. They used another flu vaccine which was also approved using a comparator in of placebo. Maybe both vaccines cause premature deaths. In any event fewer participants in the comparator group had unexplained death. Thats a concern.
BTW- here is clinical trial info for the comparator (Fluarix)
Trial 2 (NCT00197288) was a randomized, single-blind, active-controlled U.S. trial which evaluated subjects randomized to receive FLUARIX (N = 917) or FLUZONE (N = 910), a U.S.‑licensed trivalent, inactivated influenza vaccine (Sanofi Pasteur SA) stratified by age: 1
Note the tiny sample size
And last but not least. They say because of the high prevalence of serious comorbidities among decedents its probably not the vaccine. Well, maybe not the vaccine alone. But everyone over 50 has something wrong thats eventually going to kill them. Maybe the vaccine just accelerates the death that might not have occurred for months or years later w/o the vaccine
And remember, the trial participants were all required to have stable disease but once approved they will be given to those with unstable disease and likely will accelerate their deaths as well
But for all of that they do admit uncertainty
Nevertheless, definitive causal assessment is precluded by the absence of autopsies in all 29 affected mRNA-1010 recipients and lack of systematic cause-of-death adjudication.
These limitations represent residual uncertainty that cannot be resolved from existing trial data.
Yet they still approve it
Looking past deaths we see
Grade 3 systemic/local adverse events
5.5 % /1.7%vaccine
0.9% /0.1% placebo
Much higher for Moderna
Medically attended adverse events
12.0% vaccine
12.3% placebo
Imagine, taking a jab to give you a 27% chance of not getting the flu gives you a 12% chance of suffering an event that required medical treatment. 😂
Just sign me disgusted
I did put myself through the pain of watching the VRBAC meeting. There are no words to describe that shit show. Just as bad as Pre-RFK Jr VRBAC
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/event-fda-vrbpac-meetings/fda-vrbpac-meeting-moderna-mrna-influenza-vaccine-review
Anyways, they are now focusing on getting these vaccines approved for everyone including kids
End
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.