TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @SharylAttkisson

SharylAttkisson
Posted - August 15, 2025 at 1:51 PM
Saved - August 15, 2025 at 2:45 PM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

The fix is in. https://t.co/BBAo1sX8IL

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker quotes Medicare guidelines: "A treatment plan that seeks to prevent disease and enhance the quality of life, or therapy that is performed to maintain or prevent deterioration of a chronic disease is deemed not medically necessary." He notes that Medicare decisions influence others, saying: "People who are in the insurance business know what Medicare decides sooner or later will be what other insurance companies decide to do." He adds: "Medicare sort of sets the table and everybody else sort of just follows along comes to dinner." He emphasizes that "Bottom line is, just because it's not covered doesn't mean it's not good. It just means that they consider it not medically necessary." He closes with audience engagement and signs off: "Doctor. Dave Morrison, Magnolia Medical Center here in Murfreesboro, Tennessee."
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Don't want to know why something isn't covered by insurance that you think might help you or your doctor thinks might help you or it's an alternative? I'm going to read you this. This is Medicare guidelines section 2,251.3. I'm quoting this to you. A treatment plan that seeks to prevent disease and enhance the quality of life, or therapy that is performed to maintain or prevent deterioration of a chronic disease is deemed not medically necessary. I'm going to read this to you again. A treatment plan that seeks to prevent disease. That sounds like a good idea, right? A treatment plan designed to prevent disease or enhance the quality of life. Also sounds like a good idea. Or a therapy that is performed to maintain or prevent deterioration of a chronic disease. So if you already have a disease and we're trying to prevent it from getting worse, all these things that I just mentioned are deemed by Medicare not medically necessary. So when you go to comment on a post like I might make or some other providers might make You want to go, Oh, I don't believe it because if it's not covered by my insurance, I don't believe it's worthwhile. This is Medicare guidelines. And most insurances, if you don't know, some people will comment on this and say, Absolutely, this is the way it is. People who are in the insurance business know what Medicare decides sooner or later will be what other insurance companies decide to do. Medicare sort of sets the table and everybody else sort of just follows along comes to dinner. Bottom line is, just because it's not covered doesn't mean it's not good. It just means that they consider it not medically necessary. Anyway, let me know in your comments what you think of this. Put it in the comments below. Go ahead. Write it down there. Doctor. Dave Morrison, Magnolia Medical Center here in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Take care today.
SharylAttkisson
Posted - April 23, 2025 at 12:57 AM
Saved - April 23, 2025 at 12:56 PM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

I Was Swatted

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

I Was Swatted https://sharylattkisson.com/2025/04/i-was-swatted/

I Was Swatted | Sharyl Attkisson       As part of a disturbing wave of dangerous attacks The following was first published on SHARYL ATTKISSON‘s free Substack. A disturbing surge of swatting attacks has struck media personalities, conservative influencers, and me too. The FBI is investigating. FBI Director […] sharylattkisson.com
SharylAttkisson
Posted - March 9, 2025 at 11:22 PM
Saved - March 11, 2025 at 12:59 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared a timeline of claims regarding the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines from various sources, starting in November 2020. Reports highlighted efficacy rates ranging from 90% to 100% in preventing infections and severe outcomes, with endorsements from health officials and studies. Over time, assertions evolved, emphasizing the vaccines' ability to prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Notably, statements from leaders and studies suggested vaccinated individuals do not spread the virus. This information is drawn from my book "Follow the $cience."

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Here ya go. (You're welcome ;) On November 9, 2020, media reports claimed one of the Covid vaccines “was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants.” On November 18, 2020, CNN reported that “Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine is 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 infections, even in older adults, and caused no serious safety concerns.” In December of 2020, vaccine makers crowed about their products’ supposed ability to prevent infection: “Moderna’s initial Phase 3 clinical data in December 2020 was similar to Pfizer-BioNTech’s—both vaccines showed about 95% efficacy for prevention of COVID.” On December 12, 2020, Dr. Fauci claimed the vaccines have “been found to be up to 95 percent effective in preventing the COVID-19 illness.” On February 12, 2021, an article in USA Today claimed Covid vaccines “were all 100% effective in the vaccine trials in stopping hospitalizations and death.” On March 16, 2021, Pfizer announced that “its COVID-19 vaccine is extremely effective at preventing both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases of the disease.” On March 29, 2021, CDC claimed the vaccines were 90 percent effective at preventing infection. On March 31, 2021, Becker’s Hospital Review reported that “Pfizer says its vaccine is 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 in adolescents.” On April 1, 2021, Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla tweeted, “Excited to share that updated analysis from our Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%!” Also on April 1, 2021: A study in the British Medical Journal claimed the vaccines prevent infection, as well as symptoms. Fortune, New York magazine, The Intelligencer, MSNBC, and many others claimed Pfizer and Moderna shots are highly effective at preventing infection and illness. CDC Director Dr. Walensky claimed, “Vaccinated people do not carry the virus—they don’t get sick.” On June 7, 2021, a CDC study claimed “the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines . . . reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent for fully vaccinated people.” On June 14, 2021, an article in Science claimed that Novavax, Pfizer, and Moderna vaccines were “essentially 100% protective against disease.” On July 6, 2021, a Stanford study claimed vaccines prevented Covid infection in nearly 100 percent of people. On August 27, 2021, the CDC claimed, “The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were approximately 90% effective in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection” of Delta variant. On September 23, 2021, The Atlantic claimed vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid. On October 3, 2021, Dr. Fauci stated, “we do have interventions, in the form of a vaccine to prevent infection.” On October 7, 2021, President Biden claimed people who are vaccinated “cannot spread it.” On October 11, 2021, a study by a group of Indian scientists claimed four out of five vaccinated people won’t get Covid. On November 22, 2021, Pfizer issued a press release claiming its vaccine demonstrated “100% efficacy against COVID-19 in longer-term analysis, with no serious safety concerns identified” in children ages twelve to fifteen. On December 14, 2021, President Biden claimed that vaccinated people “do not spread the disease to anyone else” and “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated.” --From my book "Follow the $cience." @RobertKennedyJr @HHSGov @howiemandel

SharylAttkisson
Posted - March 5, 2025 at 8:02 PM
Saved - March 7, 2025 at 5:44 PM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

As you can see, the facts just don't square with longstanding CDC and public health claims that thimerosal was "removed" from vaccines, or vaccines given to children, in 1999 or 2001 or at any point.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

From my investigation: Here are the goods on the govt/medical establishment's deception on thimerosal (a known neurotoxin) in vaccines. (THREAD) https://t.co/nr8uZNDcgc

SharylAttkisson
Posted - March 5, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Saved - March 7, 2025 at 5:43 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I've been investigating the government's and medical establishment's deception regarding thimerosal, a known neurotoxin in vaccines. They claimed it was removed, but the facts reveal a different story, with much information scrubbed from the original sources online.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

From my investigation: Here are the goods on the govt/medical establishment's deception on thimerosal (a known neurotoxin) in vaccines. (THREAD) https://t.co/nr8uZNDcgc

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

2-You read what they claimed about thimerosal being taken out. Now here are the facts. (Much has been wiped from the original spots on the web.) https://t.co/FB60sAZ47R

SharylAttkisson
Posted - March 4, 2025 at 1:10 AM
Saved - March 4, 2025 at 1:38 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
I was shocked to learn that NIH federal employees are reportedly receiving $100k a year to do nothing. This isn't just an isolated case; I've seen similar situations during my time at CBS in 2003. I’ve shared more details and full videos on their stories.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Jaw dropping. NIH federal employees admit getting $100k a yr to do NOTHING. (While reporting at CBS, 2003 was the yr I learned there were more than just a few federal workers like this.) THREAD Here's a short video clip I call "The Man With No Work." @DrJBhattacharya @DOGE

Video Transcript AI Summary
Since March 1996, my workdays have been mostly empty. It's not that I don't want to work; they won't let me. Taxpayers are covering my generous paycheck of about a hundred thousand a year to do nothing. So, what do I do all day? I've managed to publish a couple of books, some short story fiction, and a little non-fiction writing. With all that free time, I've become a successful mystery writer. I even joined a health club near the office just to break up the day. Oddly enough, I've been getting good job reviews. I guess I'm good at doing nothing.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When this government worker goes to the office every day Speaker 1: There's nothing to do. There's nothing to pretend to do. Speaker 0: Though Edward McSweegan once managed a large portfolio of research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, his workdays have been pretty much empty since Speaker 1: March 1996. Speaker 0: It's not that he doesn't want to work, he says they won't let him. Meantime, taxpayers are covering his generous paycheck. Speaker 1: How much do you get paid to do nothing? About a hundred thousand a year. So what do you do all day when you go to the office? I've managed to publish a couple of books, some short story fiction, a little bit of non fiction writing. Speaker 0: Yes. With all that free time and with taxpayers footing the bill, he's become a successful mystery writer and more. Speaker 1: I wound up joining a health club near the office just to sort of break up the day. Speaker 0: Oddly enough, he's been getting good job reviews. Speaker 1: I guess I'm good at doing nothing.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

More on their stories and the full videos here: https://sharylattkisson.substack.com/p/federal-employees-at-nih-making-100k

Federal employees at NIH making $100k to do absolutely nothing Jaw-dropping accounts from the workers themselves sharylattkisson.substack.com
SharylAttkisson
Posted - February 28, 2025 at 9:41 PM
Saved - February 28, 2025 at 11:08 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Zelenskyy was encouraged by some European leaders to confront Trump publicly, but it might have backfired. He appeared uncomfortable, almost like he was acting. While I recognize his leadership and the challenges he faces, I wonder what happens to his status when the war ends and elections come. A foreign official I spoke with shared a similar sentiment, noting it didn’t reflect well on Zelenskyy. There’s a notion that the media and American public would support him, but that doesn’t apply to Trump voters.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

My hot take? Zelenskyy was encouraged by certain European leaders to take on Trump in front of the media. It may have backfired. Hear me out.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Not to mention Zelenskyy (to me) looked uncomfortable like he was forcing himself at theatre.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Zelenskyy may be a great leader and he’s been thru a lot. And I will bet he wants only the best for his countrymen. But I have to note: what happens when there is no more war? He is not given the hero status he has today? And there are elections?

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

I spoke to a foreign official today who happened to have nearly the exact same take. He didn’t think it was a “good look” for Zelenskyy.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Zelenskyy may have been told to take on Trump in front of the media… And the media and the American people would side with zelensky. Partly true… But not for Trump voters.

SharylAttkisson
Posted - February 13, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Saved - February 14, 2025 at 2:35 PM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Thanks Jan! There are a lot of worried, corrupt folks in public health right about now.

@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek

.@RobertKennedyJr has just been confirmed as Health Secretary. In light of this, we’d be wise to consider the words of @SharylAttkisson. She has been investigating conflicts of interest between federal agencies and pharmaceutical companies for years, and she says the corruption is mind-blowing. 01:36 - Attkisson’s Investigative Journalism Journey 02:58 - Smallpox Vaccine and Viagra Controversies 06:24 - The Frog Professor and Chemical Impacts 08:55 – Scientific Research and Peer Review Corruption 10:58 - Incentive Structures and Conflicts of Interest 15:18 - Chronic Disease and Metabolic Disorders 16:49 - Informed Consent and Ethical Concerns 20:00 - Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Health Advocacy 22:14 - The COVID-19 Experience and Positive Change

Video Transcript AI Summary
I'm an investigative reporter who initially trusted the medical establishment, but I've uncovered conflicts of interest and financial incentives that corrupt health research. The pharmaceutical industry legally launders taxpayer money through universities to produce unchallenged, biased studies. For example, a researcher who found a chemical feminizing frogs faced immense pressure to suppress his findings. Scientific journals are also compromised; former editors admit they couldn't stop industry-tainted studies. Drug companies ghostwrite articles for doctors to promote their products. They also influence medical schools, doctor education, media, and federal agencies, prioritizing profit over public health. This has led to a rise in chronic diseases, especially among children, that the medical establishment largely ignores. There's pressure to normalize these outcomes rather than address the root causes, as that is more profitable. Informed consent is also threatened, with the FDA loosening requirements for disclosing study risks.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The federal government slash pharmaceutical industry have learned how to take our taxpayer money, legally launder them through universities, public and private, who then say they don't have to reply to your FOIA requests or turn over any data. Who then put out studies that are little more than narratives and propaganda that go unchallenged. Speaker 1: Cheryl Atkinson is an Emmy award winning TV correspondent, investigative journalist, and author of several books, including most recently, Follow the Science, How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails. Speaker 0: YMI is a non medical reporter, unearthing stories that this whole industry of medical and science reporters are not unearthing. The health of the individual and their informed consent is far paramount to what you think you are doing for the good of mankind. You don't to what you think you are doing for the good of mankind. You don't have the right as a researcher to say, I can sacrifice this child or I can sacrifice something about informed consent because I think I have a more noble goal. That's not your right. Speaker 1: This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Janiekelek. Cheryl Atkinson, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders. Speaker 0: Good to be here. Thanks. Speaker 1: So, Cheryl, you've been looking at health in America for decades now. I've seen a lot of data now that shows that health outcomes for Americans, certainly, and, and actually this extends beyond America to Canada, my home country, have been going down, right, while we spend more and more on healthcare. And so can you give me a picture of, of, of that reality? Speaker 0: I think I'm like a lot of people where my starting point twenty five, thirty years ago was was a lot of faith in the medical establishment, doctors, federal health agencies, studies, you know, not really questioning anything and thinking this stuff was fairly pure and above board, put much thought into it at all. And then I was assigned to cover a couple of controversies, medical scandals for CBS News, not as a medical reporter, as an investigative reporter. So I came sort of as an outsider and began to notice some commonalities with other scandals, like government corruption scandals. There were whistleblowers. There were financial interests. There were conflicts of interest. And the more I began researching things that I thought I knew about, though maybe I hadn't researched, and realized there was evidence, very strong evidence often to the contrary of what we've been told our whole lives about various medical issues, I started to realize there was a lot more than meets the eye and that there could be some really significant information to unearth in the health and medical realm. Speaker 1: And you you started breaking some, you know, pretty significant stories. The smallpox vaccine, I think that's something you covered quite a bit. It was something that turned out wasn't wasn't a very good product and got withdrawn. Tell me a little bit about the process of figuring that out. Speaker 0: Well, as a journalist, I try I've worked really hard over the years. When I go into a story, as we all do, with preconceived ideas of what we think we know, but but to identify experts and open my mind and learn. And sometimes, you are just gobsmacked by something that's contrary to what you thought. So I've spent a lot of time making sure I could get informed and leave my own preconceived notions behind on important issues, whether it's health and medical issues or other. But here I'm speaking of health and medical. With the smallpox vaccine program, I think the first eye opener was they were gonna resume the program after 09:11 to vaccinate people for smallpox in case the terrorists would use this as a biological weapon, even though we had no outbreak. But experts at the time were saying things to me like, well, this is a toxic vaccine, and we have to be careful. And I'm I remember thinking, toxic vaccine? I thought the smallpox vaccine saved the world. What are you talking about? Learned a lot about side effects and why that vaccine was considered more problematic perhaps than other routine vaccines, and that's just an accepted fact. And ultimately, they halted the program because as they tried to start start this vaccine program with first responders and they were going to expand it, people didn't want the shots. There were cases of heart inflammation and blood clots and so on. Sounds familiar. My child was fully vaccinated. I had more than my share, especially being able to travel with the military on assignments for CBS News. And I realized I had not put much thought into these products and what was happening behind the scenes in terms of, toxicity at times and then cover ups on the part of government and certain leaders, who are affiliated with the vaccine and pharmaceutical industry. One of my my first stories I thought was also fascinating. I broke the story of Viagra causing blindness. The possibility, a study arose, that there could be blindness linked to Viagra. And I did a little bit of investigation, like I would do a normal non health related story, and I found a clear pattern of adverse event reports that, you know, leaned toward not only blindness, but deafness as well. I spoke with some experts. I found some studies. And as luck would have it, as I was preparing the story for air, shockingly, the FDA actually acknowledged to me before my story air that they were negotiating with the drug maker at the time to put a warning label about the blindness on Viagra. So I didn't even have to fight the the FDA as to what the truth was. They were acknowledging it. So and and with that story, I realized, why am I as a nonmedical reporter unearthing stories that this whole industry of medical and science reporters are not unearthing? Why are the drug companies and the government not on the front line of alerting us to some of these dangers that you think they would be on the cutting edge of alerting us to? And why, as I discovered, is it so often a doctor outside the specialty Speaker 1: who's who's looking at patterns and up unearthing side effects that the specialists who are Speaker 0: unearthing side effects that the specialists who are prescribing the drugs aren't unearthing and exposing themselves. Speaker 1: I think you dedicate a chapter, a significant portion, to your the the findings of Tyrone Hayes. Right? And looking at, how certain chemicals and water seem to be affecting the development of frogs or tadpoles. And so, and and the astonishing reaction. Speaker 0: I call him the frog professor in that chapter. And it's a fascinating story because over twenty five years ago, this man was hired by a chemical company to study a chemical that sadly is in most of our drinking water now. It's runoff from crops, used on a lot of corn. The company was hoping to prove it was safe and not causing problems because the EPA was gonna be analyzing it and taking a look at regulations. And unfortunately for him, he found it was feminizing, in his words, frogs. Taking frogs that were male and turning them in essence into female or having frogs not develop testes or develop both testes and ovaries at the same time. And a host of other research has built upon this. It turns out it impacts all vertebrates basically in some form, in negative ways, many different ways besides this feminization. But what happened to him when he tried to simply report what he had learned, I think is a lesson for all of us to how studies and science is skewed today, are skewed today, because the company had a buttoned down contract. He wasn't allowed to report the negative findings. And people don't realize, pharmaceutical industry hires academics, but the contracts now will say, in essence, if you find something negative, you can't publish it. Used to be everything got published. So to his credit, he, went independent. He quit that job, repeated the research independently so that he could publish it. And again, it's been built on over the years with a lot of powerful research, but what the company did to try to destroy him, the tactics that they deployed to try to get him fired, to controversialize his research, investigate him, investigate his wife, psychoanalyze him. And this was all confirmed, with documents that were released as part of a law suit. When the company was sued over allegedly adulterating water in various cities, they paid a huge settlement without admitting fault. But I think it's an instructive lesson in what happens to you as a researcher if you unfortunately happen to be off the narrative of what powerful interests may want you to find, how you can suffer and pay the price for that. Speaker 1: I think we have a bit of that sort of idealized view of of or at least have had overly idealized view of of research as being kind of something pure. And, of course, one would wanna keep it that way at some at some level. But tell me a little bit about this sort of the general picture then. Speaker 0: Well, sadly, the scientific industry has been so corrupted by money sources that even the people that you'd like to think would defend, for example, most of the science printed in the journals that your doctor rely relies on today is not to be believed because it's Speaker 1: been so Speaker 0: corrupted. And I was stunned because I'm one of those people that used to think, hey, you read something, and it's in a peer reviewed published journal, everybody always says that's the gold standard, that's it. Come to find out, Doctor. Marcia Angell, former head of the New England Journal of Medicine, said that, it's problematic that she said she learned as editor in chief she could not stop the bad studies with the bad information in them that was that were hopelessly tainted by the pharmaceutical industry. She fought she said she lost that battle. The current editor of the British journal Lancet has said much the same, doctor Richard Horton. Horton. He in a stunning editorial some years ago, he said that much of the science is not to be believed. And then many studies have been built upon that sense that give high percentages of information in medical journals that are not to be believed because they've been corrupted by the scientific, you know, money interests. Basically, let's say pharmaceutical and chemical industry. And there are a lot of tactics that I learned they use that are invisible to us, such as ghost writing a study that looks like it's it's signed by an independent doctor who's paid for the use of his he has been paid for the use of his signature. But the article was actually written by the drug company or a middleman hired by the drug company, not disclosed in the article in the scientific journal, and it's being used to pump up the need or supposed need for a drug that's gonna be introduced or a medicine that they currently make or to make it look like the medicine works very well with no side effects. And people have no idea this material, not only the studies may be tainted, but they're literally being written by a drug company when not disclosed necessarily in the final product. Those are just some of the conflicts that happened today. Speaker 1: You know, Cheryl, we're gonna take a quick break right now, and we'll be right back. And we're back with investigative journalist and author of Follow the Science, Cheryl Atkinson. I've learned over recent years to look at things from from the perspective of the incentive structures that exist in a system. It doesn't seem like that's, I guess, a typical practice. So how how did we get to that? I think this has been a slippery slope that has occurred over the course of twenty years Speaker 0: or more. Covered it and noticed it in the last twenty, twenty five years for sure as I got assignments at CBS News as an investigative reporter. But money interests have figured out how to infiltrate virtually every aspect of the information we may get about our health. Mhmm. And this has happened over time. And unfortunately, the powers that be have allowed it. So pharmaceutical interests have too much influence in medical school, but the medical schools allow it in part because the drug companies give them money for research, money for projects, money for professorships, bring in lunches for the students. I mean, it's top to bottom, all kinds of influence. They influence the the professional educations of doctors. Once doctors have gotten their licenses to keep them, they take classes that are taught by the pharmaceutical industry, but often not disclosed in overt ways. So the doctors think they're being taught by independent authorities about, you know, steered to look at medicine and the practice of medicine a certain way and maybe not to look for side effects or to believe very much in a medicine that may have controversies and dual sides to it, but they're taught only one side. They have taken over, as the journal editors have said, the scientific journals in many respects. They have taken over the media in many respects and influenced the media through the advertising money they spend in the media. So the media now, they just self censor that really the outsiders don't even have to tell them what to report and what not to report, what which used to happen. Now I think there's so much self censorship because it's understood where the money is made. And then they've influenced the federal agencies and political figures through donations and influence that make sure policies that happen and laws that are written are favorable to they and their interests rather than to those of us who are impacted by them. And it's this is something that I think is a very well orchestrated, clever campaign by financial interests whose job is to try to maximize their profits and figure out how to make the world work this way. Unfortunately, and I'm not sure it's by design, maybe some people think it is. Unfortunately, it's resulted in our poor health. Overall, I think making us sicker as a population. What I think is alarming is we've noticed over the past couple of decades, there is an epidemic of chronic health disorders among our children and also among adults and our elderly, but particularly we see what's happened to the younger generation, whether we're talking about mental illness, metabolic problems and obesity, cancers, disorders that didn't used to exist that are related to immune immune system disorders and so on. And yet, you look in the big picture and you say we've never spent more money on insurance, health care, pills, doctors. And our doctors and our federal agencies, they seem not to notice this. So they're either not noticing what we all see, or they're looking the other way. I don't know which is worse. But I think that's what's led to people understanding there's a crisis going on, and the medical establishment as it exists today has done a poor job of addressing the root causes or even seeming very alarmed by these epidemics that are impacting, in some way, almost every American today. Speaker 1: Give me an example of some some of the changes that you've seen through your career covering these sorts of things in terms of the incidence. There's certain diseases, for example, that have, you know, become much more prevalent. Speaker 0: Well, I'll give you examples, and then I'll speak to how interesting it is that instead of addressing the root causes, we are taught to normalize and accept them. Mhmm. And there's a reason behind that. I think the people steering us to accept these disorders rather than address maybe how to prevent them are sometimes the same industries implicated in the problems. So let's say a lot of people think, and there's great science that points to metabolic disorders being caused by the adulterated food that we eat today that has a lot of products and chemicals in it. And the chemical makers and the companies that make so much money with these products and the processed foods that we think are so bad for us now, well, they want you to accept obesity. Of course, people shouldn't be shamed for their size and so on. So that's not an issue. But why don't we also address why everybody so many people are obese and there is a metabolic thing happening. But those who want us to accept it are the ones that make the products that could be causing it. We're also talking about artificial food dyes. We're talking about, preservatives that go in food. So there's just a lot of things impacting us. There's pressure to accept Speaker 1: the outcome rather than Speaker 0: address the root causes. Pressure to accept the outcome rather than address the root causes, and I think that's big money driven. Speaker 1: This issue of informed consent is something we've certainly been talking about, but this is something that's been kind of a problem from some time. You have some significant examples in your book. Speaker 0: Informed consent and the tenants of it were really ingrained in our scientific system after the Tuskegee syphilis experiments where African American black men were experimented on without being told exactly why and what was happening to them and were not they they had syphilis and were not given treatment for syphilis years after after one was discovered, was being withheld from them. This was exposed later by an Associated Press story. It resulted in a lot of outrage and these ideas that people should have should have to give written, informed consent if they're going to be in a study. They should be told and all the risks disclosed to them. There should be independent boards overseeing all of this. Well, there's been a tension ever since, as I've learned, with researchers arguing, well, when we tell people all the risks, they don't wanna be in the study. And we can't do really important research for the greater good by telling people all the risks. And there have been many cases where they haven't. And they've gotten caught by the government's own assessment or by their ethics bodies assessment, not giving proper informed consent in some really horrible ways. But that was always considered, okay, you violated informed consent, but that's still our tenant. Informed consent is still how it should be. But I watched as the past ten years with a particular case where informed consent was violated according to the, an ethics body looking at important studies by prestigious institutions in a study of premature babies. And researchers started to overtly argue that maybe these rules should be changed. You know, maybe we shouldn't have to tell everybody so much. So for the past ten years, there have been facets of the scientific community working on that problem, trying to not have to tell us if we're in a study what could happen. And most people, I think, don't know that some months ago, the FDA passed a rule that said researchers, if they determine on their own that the risks are minimal, they don't have to disclose those to people in a study. Shocking. A shocking lifting of these rules that have really guided us or were supposed to guide researchers for decades. Obviously, I think if you're in a study, you should be told every little thing that could go wrong so that you can make up your mind if you wanna be in the study. I think if risks really are minimal, why can't they tell you? Why is that something they would want to withhold? And then I think that the history of some corrupt scientists or scientists who have made bad decisions in the past shows us it shouldn't be left up to them to decide a risk is minimal. It may not be. You know, you're leaving it up to the same people that could be conflicted to decide that their study needs to be disclosed to the subjects who are in the study. So I think this is a huge important development that hasn't been well reported. Speaker 1: So, Robert F Kennedy Junior has recently sort of suspended his campaign with a message of, I think. Right? Make America healthy again. And I can't help but think about that, given everything we've just discussed. Speaker 0: My first interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Was decades ago when I was again assigned to cover a medical controversy for CBS News. And I would just say he is the single most important political figure right now who has his finger on the pulse of what's happening with the things we've discussed, the food and health crisis, the crisis in medicine and treatment, and the corruption that exists inside our institutions. He said to me in one of our interviews, which makes him uniquely dangerous to this establishment we've discussed, that if he were elected president when he was running, he said, I will go to CDC headquarters in Atlanta, and I know the names of the people to fire. And he does. I don't know if people know he's an attorney who has litigated against the government in medical scandals in vaccine and vaccine autism cases, and he has won cases against the government. He intricately understands how this system works and where the corruption lies. So, again, I think that makes him uniquely dangerous, but very well informed because he has decades of looking at environmental factors and health factors, particularly in children, of what's causing chronic diseases and disorders. And I think he's he's really an important voice right now in all of these things. Speaker 1: Cheryl, this has been a fascinating conversation. Final thought as we finish up? Speaker 0: I think on a positive note, the COVID experience, during which some of the forces trying to control our narratives in a way that I think was not healthy, it became so audacious that it made people pay attention who weren't paying attention before. It turned some people and some mainstream doctors even into activists who'd never seen themselves that way. And out of that has been born this new sort of subculture that is not small, where they are working now to figure out how to solve our most vexing health problems that the main establishment has ignored, like the chronic health disorders. They are trying to mount independent studies that the establishment won't pay for. They're developing protocols, and people are starting to look for these resources and take back more control of their own health. I think that's the silver lining in all of this. Speaker 1: Well, Cheryl Atkison, it's such a pleasure to have had you on again. Thanks. Thank you all for joining Cheryl Atkison and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Janja Kellick.
SharylAttkisson
Posted - February 12, 2025 at 11:16 PM
Saved - February 14, 2025 at 1:56 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I question why the public isn't aware of a significant government study showing that flu shots don't work in the elderly and have no impact on mortality rates across age groups. Interestingly, as more elderly individuals received flu shots, the death rate actually increased. I've faced obstacles in getting interviews with study authors, raising concerns about transparency. This is just one part of my deeper exploration into vaccines and government cover-ups, which I discuss further in my book, "Follow the $cience."

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Why don't you know about this? That time a definitive govt. study concluded flu shots don't work in the elderly-- and didn't make a difference with mortality in any age group. The more of the elderly population that got flu shots, the more the death rate increased." NIH wouldn't give permission to any of the study authors to do an interview with me. Why? Step #2 of sending me down the rabbit hole on vaccines and govt. coverups. @RepThomasMassie Much more in my bestseller: Follow the $cience https://www.amazon.com/Follow-Science-Sharyl-Attkisson/dp/0063314916/ref=sr_1_1

Video Transcript AI Summary
We're taking a closer look at protecting seniors from the flu, following studies questioning the effectiveness of flu shots for older people. Despite millions of seniors getting vaccinated annually, and 90% of flu deaths occurring in those 65 or older, mass vaccinations haven't reduced deaths. Over twenty years, flu shot rates in seniors rose from 15% to 65%, but flu deaths continued to climb. NIH research confirmed flu shots haven't reduced deaths in the elderly. A study, soon to be published, finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and the UK. The CDC is exploring new strategies, but still recommends flu shots, as they may lessen flu severity. A likely shift may involve indirectly protecting seniors by vaccinating more children and others around them.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The CDC is taking a closer look at how best to protect seniors from the flu. The agency is holding a symposium about that and other issues this week. It all follows a series of studies that question the effectiveness of flu shots given to older people. Here's Cheryl Atkinson with our report. Speaker 1: Millions of seniors swear by their annual flu shots. After all, ninety percent of people killed by the flu are 65 or older. That's perfect. But CBS News has learned that behind the scenes, public health officials have come to a new and disturbing conclusion. Mass vaccinations of the elderly haven't done the job. Doctor Walter Orenstein was among the first to notice the problem when he headed up the Centers for Disease Control's National Immunization Program. He says it's now become a consensus among public health experts. Speaker 2: What is absolutely clear is that there is still a substantial burden of deaths and hospitalizations out there that has not been prevented through the present strategy. Speaker 1: Here's what scientists have found. Over twenty years, the percentage of seniors getting flu shots increased sharply from fifteen percent to sixty five percent. It stands to reason that flu deaths among the elderly should have taken a dramatic dip, making an X graph like this. Instead, flu deaths among the elderly continue to climb. It was hard to believe, so researchers at the National Institutes of Health set out to do a study adjusting for all kinds of factors that could be masking the true benefits of the shots. But no matter how they crunched the numbers, they got the same disappointing result. Flu shots have not reduced deaths among the elderly. It's not what health officials hope to find. NIH wouldn't let us interview the study's lead author, so we went to Boston and found the only co author not employed by NIH, doctor Tom Reichardt. Speaker 3: We realized that we had incendiary materials. Speaker 1: Doctor Reichardt says they thought their study would prove vaccinations had helped. Speaker 3: We, we were trying to do something mainstream. That's for sure. Speaker 1: Were you surprised? Astonished. Did you check the date a couple of times to make sure? Speaker 3: Well, even more than that, we've looked at other countries now. And the same is true. Speaker 1: That study, soon to be published, finds the same poor results in Australia, France, Canada, and The UK. And other new research stokes the idea that decades of promoting flu shots in seniors and the billions spent haven't had the desired result. The current head of national immunizations confirms CDC is now looking at new strategies, but stops short of calling the present policy a failure. Speaker 4: There's an active dialogue into how we can do better to prevent influenza and its complications in the elderly. Speaker 1: So what's an older person to do? The CDC says they should still get their flu shots, that it could make flu less severe or prevent other problems not reflected in the total numbers. But But watch for CDC to likely shift in the near future more toward protecting the elderly in a roundabout way by vaccinating more children and others around them who could give them the flu. Cheryl Atkinson, CBS News, Washington.
503 - Service Unavailable Error amazon.com
SharylAttkisson
Posted - December 26, 2024 at 8:19 PM
Saved - December 27, 2024 at 2:49 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I revealed that the government needed 39,000 daily sign-ups for Obamacare but only six people registered on the first day. Despite this, officials covered up the truth. My investigations into various scandals, including Obamacare, drew government scrutiny, and I faced intrusions into my files. The Obamacare website rollout was a costly failure, raising doubts about the government's ability to manage an insurance system. My coverage even inspired a country music jingle, highlighting the public's reaction to these revelations.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

The govt. needed 39,000 a day to sign up for Obamacare to meet its goals-- most would come in the early days of the website going live. The truth? I broke the news on CBS: 6 people signed up the first day. But govt. officials lied about that, covered it up, and pretended they didn't know the numbers. Folks think govt. spied on me & my CBS computers because of my Fast & Furious or Benghazi investigations. It's true the intruders looked thru those files, but the govt. was also wild-eyed angry over my coverage of green energy scandals & Obamacare--which began w/a Big Lie. The rollout of the Obamacare website was an unmitigated and expensive disaster, predicted and predictable, at taxpayer cost. People rightly wondered: if govt. couldn't design a working website, or be honest about its failings, how could the govt. be trusted to come up with an insurance system that was supposedly going to be better and save us all money?

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Obama administration has reported millions of visits to the new health insurance website, but has not disclosed how many policies have been purchased. Early enrollment figures from internal meetings reveal a slow start, with only 6 enrollments on the first day and 248 by the end of the second day. To meet the goal of 7 million enrollees by March 1, the exchanges need about 39,000 enrollments daily. Issues such as problems with direct enrollment, confusion from credit checks, and incorrect phone numbers have contributed to the slow uptake. Despite requests for enrollment numbers, officials have not provided them, stating they will be available in mid-November. The Health and Human Services Department indicated that slow initial enrollment was anticipated.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Good evening. For 31 days now, the Obama administration has been telling us that Americans by the millions are visiting the new health insurance website despite all of its problems. But no one in the administration has been willing to tell us how many policies have been purchased, and this may be the reason. CBS News has learned enrollments got off to an incredibly slow start. Cheryl Atkinson attained documents that haven't been seen by the public until now. Speaker 1: Early enrollment figures are contained in notes from twice a day war room meetings convened within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after the website failed on October 1st. They were turned over in response to a document request from the House Oversight Committee. The website launched on Tuesday. Publicly, the government said there were 4,700,000 unique visits in the first 24 hours. But at a meeting Wednesday morning, the war room notes say 6 enrollments have occurred so far. We're with Blue Cross Blue Shield North Carolina and Kansas City, CareSource, and Healthcare Service Corporation. By Wednesday afternoon, enrollments were up to approximately 100. By the end of Wednesday, the notes reflect 248 enrollments nationwide. The health care exchanges need to average 39,000 enrollees a day to meet the goal of 7,000,000 by March 1st. The war room notes give a glimpse into some of the reasons customers had problems. Direct enrollment, signing up directly on an insurer's website is not working for any issuers. Experian credit reporting agency is creating confusion with credit check information. Issuer phone numbers are not appearing correctly on the pay now page. The notes leave no doubt that the enrollment figures, which the administration has chosen to keep secret, are available. Statistics coming in, say notes from the very first meeting the morning of October 2nd, contractor QSSI has a daily dashboard created every night. But head of CMS, Marilyn Taverner, wouldn't disclose the figures when Dave Camp, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee asked earlier this week. How do you not know how many people have enrolled? Chairman Camp, we will have those numbers available in mid November. Health and Human Services today told us it's in no position to confirm or discuss enrollment figures because it doesn't have any. A spokesman suggested that enrollment was always expected to start very slowly and then skyrocket as the deadline approaches, Scott. Speaker 0: Cheryl Lankesson breaking the news tonight, and we'll follow-up tomorrow. Thank you, Cheryl.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

The revelations in my news coverage inspired a country music jingle of sorts... https://t.co/k4Tywx4Bdd

SharylAttkisson
Posted - December 20, 2024 at 1:10 AM
Saved - December 20, 2024 at 8:54 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall a government shutdown in 2013 while reporting for CBS News, where we struggled to find genuine impacts on people's lives. Instead of acknowledging the lack of real consequences, we felt pressured to portray a negative narrative about the "Republican" shutdown. This led to officials fabricating scenarios, like cordoning off unmanned monuments, to create a visible impact for the media. It highlighted how journalists sometimes shape stories to fit preconceived narratives rather than letting the facts guide the reporting.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Quick story about govt. shutdowns and the theatrics behind them. One year when I was reporting at CBS News during a govt. shutdown, I think 2013, we were sincerely searching for real life impact. When we couldn't find any, *that* should have been part of the story. Instead, we kept trying to create the appearance of an impact. It wasn't really trying to be dishonest. It was, in my retrospective view, because the general editorial idea for the story was to show how bad the "Republican" shutdown was for ordinary Americans, and the answer simply couldn't be that it wasn't. I've written quite a bit about this but we, as journalists, too often "decide" the story in advance and shape the facts to fit our narrative, rather than gathering information and letting that tell the story, whatever it may be. Anyway, the Ds were blaming Rs for the shutdown, so we were calling Ds and the Obama administration for ideas to report what was the real impact. Taking our cue, these officials fabricated impact that we could report. For example, they cordoned off outdoor public monuments in Washington DC. We knew and even discussed in the newsroom that this made no sense. These monuments weren't "manned" to begin with. The only reason to cordon them off from the public was so that visiting tourists would see the "impact" of the shutdowns and the news media would have something to take pictures of and interview people about. There are other examples but this is the one I remember the most.

SharylAttkisson
Posted - October 12, 2024 at 2:35 PM
Saved - October 14, 2024 at 2:36 AM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

(READ) Whistleblower: Remdesivir linked to 601 military deaths https://sharylattkisson.com/2024/10/read-whistleblower-remdesivir-linked-to-601-military-deaths/

(READ) Whistleblower: Remdesivir linked to 601 military deaths | Sharyl Attkisson Whistleblower exposes 601 military deaths linked to remdesivir, alleging data manipulation and lack of informed consent. sharylattkisson.com
SharylAttkisson
Posted - July 14, 2024 at 2:24 AM
Saved - July 14, 2024 at 3:39 AM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Watching the ladies at work here. https://t.co/ySuIw78VfR

SharylAttkisson
Posted - February 17, 2024 at 6:02 PM
Saved - February 18, 2024 at 1:59 AM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Two IRS whistleblowers who investigated Hunter Biden and say they were stopped from following the trail leading to his dad tell their story tomorrow on Full Measure. https://t.co/INiFafoUOc

Video Transcript AI Summary
The IRS agents found evidence to investigate Joe Biden for financial crimes. Despite claims of no evidence linking Joe to Hunter Biden's businesses, the speaker believes it is untrue.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The IRS agents say they began finding evidence that gave them strong reason to wanna look into Joe Biden. We not only investigate tax crimes, we investigate financial crimes, wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, international money laundering. There's all sorts of things that we have in our tool belt to investigate cases. So in this case, we had leads. The press and many people actually in both political parties say things such as there's no evidence tying Joe Biden to Hunter Biden's businesses or any improper activities. When you hear that, what do you think? I think it's blatantly false.
SharylAttkisson
Posted - November 5, 2023 at 7:21 PM
Saved - November 6, 2023 at 11:21 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
In my lawsuit against government spying, I presented evidence that an agent, who admitted to spying on me, had worked as an informant for US Attorney Rod Rosenstein. Sadly, the informant passed away, hindering further revelations. Additionally, the historic clerk's default I received in my lawsuit, the first of its kind involving government spying on a journalist, seems unlikely to progress.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

I wish I were making this up. In my ongoing lawsuit over the govt. spying on my computers, I submitted this document to the court. It proved that one agent who admitted spying on me (and many others) had, indeed, worked as an informant for US Atty. Rod Rosenstein, as he'd claimed. About a week later, the informant was reported dead. Which of course means he can't provide more details of the operation. And the historic clerk's default I received against him in my lawsuit-- the first known such decision in a case of govt. spying on a journalist--pretty much will go nowhere.

SharylAttkisson
Posted - November 5, 2023 at 7:21 PM
Saved - November 6, 2023 at 7:28 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Sharyl Attkisson shared a document in her lawsuit, revealing an agent who admitted to spying on her had worked as an informant for Rod Rosenstein. Later, the informant died, hindering further details. Bill Swiggart questioned if Rosenstein's disclosure led to the informant's death. Attkisson hadn't considered that possibility. Swiggart wondered why Rosenstein revealed the informant's name if he intended to conceal it.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

I wish I were making this up. In my ongoing lawsuit over the govt. spying on my computers, I submitted this document to the court. It proved that one agent who admitted spying on me (and many others) had, indeed, worked as an informant for US Atty. Rod Rosenstein, as he'd claimed. About a week later, the informant was reported dead. Which of course means he can't provide more details of the operation. And the historic clerk's default I received against him in my lawsuit-- the first known such decision in a case of govt. spying on a journalist--pretty much will go nowhere.

@BillSwiggart - William F. Swiggart

@SharylAttkisson Shockingly, you seem to be implying that Rosenstein filed the motion for the purpose of revealing the White's status as a confidential informant, and that he did so for the purpose of getting him killed.

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

@BillSwiggart I hadn't thought of that...

@BillSwiggart - William F. Swiggart

@SharylAttkisson What other reason could he have had for publicly revealing the man's name and alias even while ostensibly seeking to conceal it?

SharylAttkisson
Posted - October 20, 2023 at 2:07 PM
Saved - October 20, 2023 at 2:49 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Many individuals suffering from undiagnosed illnesses were mistakenly told they may have MS. However, research has revealed that microclotting from Long Covid/Long Vax is the actual cause. Our government and public health institutions need to address this negligence. Seek help here: [link]

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

I personally know several ppl suffering from various illness that drs couldn't figure out & were told they may have MS... but they got checked by a research/expert & they actually have microclotting from Long Covid/Long Vax that their own drs didn't detect. Our govt/public health institutions are negligent. Help can be sought here: #LongVax #LongCovid #Covid #Microclotting https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/09/long-covid-long-vax-resources/

‘Long Covid,’ ‘Long Vax’ resources | Sharyl Attkisson sharylattkisson.com
SharylAttkisson
Posted - September 18, 2023 at 4:03 PM
Saved - September 18, 2023 at 4:26 PM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

Save this resource. Odds are you'll need it. #CovidClots #LongVax #LongCovid @PierreKory @jfvaughnmd09 The COVID Clots: A Full Measure Town Hall

SharylAttkisson
Posted - June 2, 2023 at 7:50 PM
Saved - June 2, 2023 at 7:55 PM

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

How social media censorship works in real time. This has been the case for my @Twitter & Facebook accts for about 15 yrs. It's esp obvious when I interview someone like @RobertKennedyJr : #DoubleWhammy! @elonmusk

@SharylAttkisson - Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋

(BREAKING) Robert F. Kennedy: No Holds Barred (Podcast and Transcript) https://sharylattkisson.com/2023/06/robert-f-kennedy-no-holds-barred/ @Robertfkennedyj @ChildrensHD

Robert F. Kennedy: No Holds Barred (Podcast and Transcript) | Sharyl Attkisson sharylattkisson.com
View Full Interactive Feed