In a much anticipated public appearance, Susan Monarez, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, attempted to defend her short tenure at the embattled public health agency.
Things did not go well for her from the start (via Camus on X):
Senator Dr. Roger Marshall delivered a stunning rebuke to the CDC, exposing them as the primary cause of vaccine hesitancy. He laid out the truth: by forcing unjustified COVID vaccines and an unnecessary Day-1 hepatitis vaccine on every American, the CDC has shattered public trust.
Their one-size-fits-all mandate is not science—it’s tyranny, forcing doctors to abandon their oaths and patients to abandon their doctors. Marshall champions medical freedom, praising the miracles of proven vaccines like Polio and MMR while condemning the CDC’s corrupt, blanket mandates.
This is the philosophy of reason, the mission of the President, and the future that RFK Jr. fights for.
After Monarez got a few softball questions from Bernie Sanders and others, Senator Rand Paul stepped in with the tough ones. (Via Vigilant Fox)
He started with the basics – asking if the COVID vaccines actually stop transmission.
PAUL: “Does the COVID vaccine prevent transmission?”
MONAREZ: “The COVID vaccine can reduce viral load in individuals who are—”
PAUL: “Does it prevent transmission?”
MONAREZ: “When you have reduced viral load… you will have reduced transmission.”
PAUL: “But in other words, it DOESN’T prevent transmission. You can still transmit the virus if you’ve had the vaccine.”
Paul then turned to children. He asked Monarez if the COVID vaccine was indicated for kids.
She repeated the same line—that “it can” reduce hospitalization and death. But Paul wasn’t letting it slide.
PAUL: “Does the COVID vaccine reduce hospitalization for children under 18?”
MONAREZ: “It can.”
Paul fired back. “It doesn’t. The statistics are inconclusive. And the reason you can’t prove that it does is there’s so few people under 18 that go to the hospital. The numbers are extraordinarily small.”
When he pressed further about whether the vaccines reduce death in children, Monarez again answered, “It can.”
That’s when Paul shut it down. He pointed to the real risk children face—not COVID, but myocarditis.
“You find that there is a risk of myocarditis, a significant event [in young men and boys]. It’s somewhere between 6 and 8 in 10,000. But that’s much greater than the risk of hospitalization or death, which are not even measurable because they’re so small.”
From there, Paul moved on to the hepatitis B vaccine.
Monarez tried to pivot, but Paul wasn’t letting her off the hook. She couldn’t come up with a single argument in favor of giving Hep B on the first day of life, looking like a deer in headlights when Paul asked her the question.
Then, Paul gets to the root of the issue behind why Susan Monarez was let go from the CDC. (Via Vigilant Fox)
You could feel it…the moment everything changed.
It was about one thing: the childhood vaccine schedule.
And Senator Paul made it clear that this is the debate the public deserves to have.
Paul: “So you resisted firing people who have this idea that the COVID vaccine should be at six months. That’s what this is about. You didn’t resist firing the beautiful scientists that are career people and un-objective and unbiased.”
“You wouldn’t fire the people who are saying that we have to vaccinate our kids at six months of age. That’s who you refuse to fire.”
Monarez: “So that assertion, is not commensurate with the experience that I had with the individuals who are identified to be fired.”
Paul: “Did any of the people you refused to fire believe that we should change the vaccine schedule and no longer force six-month-old kids to take it?”
“Every one of them was adamant we should keep it at six months.”
Then Paul dropped a question that stopped the room cold:
“What is the medical reason to give a Hepatitis B vaccine to a newborn whose mom has no hepatitis?”
Monarez: “So none of the discussion points that you just brought up were ever…”
Paul: “That’s changing the childhood schedule.”
“This is the debate over changing the childhood schedule. The Hepatitis B vaccine on the schedule is given to newborns.”
“What is the medical scientific reason and proof for giving a newborn a Hepatitis B vaccine? If the mom is Hep B negative?”
Monarez: “I want to go back to the assertion…”
Paul: “What is the medical reason for giving a Hepatitis B vaccine to newborn?”
“See, everybody’s like blithely going along. We can’t change the childhood and you’re somehow terrible if you want to change the childhood, we should be discussing what is the childhood vaccine schedule.”
“The burden should be on you. You want to make all the kids take this. The burden is upon you and the people you wouldn’t fire to prove to us that we need to give our six-month-old a COVID vaccine, and that we need to give our one-day-old a Hepatitis B vaccine.”
“That’s what the debate ought to be about, not whether all vaccines are good or whether we live in Alice in Wonderland.”
Watch the entire exchange here and judge her level of smugness for yourself…
Paul wasn’t alone in his destruction of Monarez’ credibility as Senator Markwayne Mullin exposing her for the dishonest operative she is.
Her story completely unravels (via Camus on X)
Here’s the brutal takedown:
1/ Mullin establishes the foundational truth: She served at the will of the President. His power to remove her is absolute, rooted in the Constitution. She AGREES. This isn’t about the “why” of her firing—it’s about her credibility afterward.
2/ The timeline of her legal counsel becomes the first major crack. When did she first SEEK counsel, not just retain it? She suddenly “can’t recall.” Mullin doesn’t buy it: “Maybe you should recall them, because I think you might have an honesty issue here that we want to point out.”
3/ She claims she spoke to attorneys “on or before the day I was fired.” A classic non-answer. Mullin pounces, forcing her to admit she retained them the very first time she spoke to them. An incredibly unusual and rushed move for a high-level official.
4/ Then, the time of the firing: A late-night email. Mullin’s killer question: “So you got all the attorneys late at night? You got hold of attorneys after business hours to retain them?” Her response? The familiar “I don’t recall.” Mullin: “I think you do.”
5/ The Senator highlights the absurdity: “It wasn’t that long ago, and I think I could recall when I hired an attorney.” The evasion is blatant. The pattern of deception is clear.
6/ Next, she’s caught in another web regarding removing political appointees from her floor. She plays dumb, claiming she doesn’t understand the question. Mullin calls her out: “This isn’t hard. You talk in circles and I just want an answer, because you know.”
7/ The FINAL BLOW: The “trust” conversation with the Secretary. She claims the Secretary said he “could not trust” her. Mullin reveals the truth: “That isn’t how that conversation went. And you know that, don’t you?” He indicates the meeting was recorded, catching her in a lie.
8/ Mullin’s closing is a masterpiece. He compares her to his children, stating the core principle of truth: “The minute I can’t tell you’re being honest with me, I can’t trust you. And then on, everything you say is questioned.”
This was a surgical dissection of a witness who believed she could obfuscate and mislead under oath. Senator Mullin exposed a calculated narrative built on a foundation of sand.
This is why oversight matters. This is accountability.
Our message to her is simple: …never go full smug-tard!
