“The Democrats don’t matter,” he had said to me over our lunch. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”
This piece by Genevieve Newton published by the Brownstone Institute is a masterclass in innuendo and misdirection:
At the core of my concern is that despite what we’re being told by our government and policy makers, this is not a black and white issue. I have many questions about whether the current Covid trajectory is justified. . . .
Does a “one size fits all” approach to vaccination fail to take into account that some people are at a higher risk of serious outcomes from Covid, or that some people are at a higher risk of adverse events from vaccination? Does it consider that different vaccine doses or schedules may reduce the risk of adverse events? Are we failing to base our recommendations for vaccination across different demographics on the best available evidence? And why are different countries drawing different conclusions from analyses of the same data? . . .
Vaccine hesitancy, anyone? Distrust in experts and governments? Just asking questions!
Since the vaccine reduces short-term severe infections and death (at least in the short term), is it not probable that the true number of breakthrough infections has been greatly underestimated? And because of waning vaccine effectiveness, is the risk of breakthrough infections not likely a moving target that changes across time? Are we chasing an impossible target of herd immunity through the current strategy? And could the pursuit of this potentially mythical target be preventing us from putting energy and resources into diversifying our approach to harm reduction? . . .
You mean like rapid testing, contact tracing, better ventilation, . . . ??? No, these do not get mentioned. What does get mentioned? See below.
That is, the study concluded that there is a greater risk of death from vaccines, even in the older age group. [WTF – Ed.] While this analysis is complicated by several assumptions and will be widely criticized for being unreliable as a result, the fact that scientists are raising these concerns is deeply troubling, especially when they have nothing to gain and are subject to ridicule for doing so. . . .
One of the primary “reliable” sources of vaccine safety data that will be acceptable for analysis by scientists are the clinical trials being conducted by the vaccine companies. Clinical trials have control groups and are subject to other conditions that make it possible to draw conclusions regarding cause and effect. But what about research bias? . . .
What indeed. I guess we really can’t trust anyone. Then she makes a pitch for vitamin D, selenium, iron and . . . surprise! . . . ivermectin:
Michael describes how the mainstream media is publishing articles containing “deceptions” and “falsehoods” in the course of the “most misleading, murderous coverage of a global issue in modern times, the assassination of poor little ivermectin.”
The confusion is mind boggling to the average person. . . .
I wonder why?
Merck is seeking Emergency Use Authorization for Molnupiravir as soon as possible, and there has been great excitement about this new drug. Mainstream media headlines tout its remarkable ability to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death. What they fail to mention is that the absolute risk reduction conferred by the drug is only 6.8%. . . .
Absolute risk reduction has its uses, especially in cost/benefit analysis, but it can also be misleading. A drug like Molnupiravir that reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from covid from 14% to 7% has a relative risk reduction of 50%. This sounds great and is great. However, the absolute risk reduction is only 7%, which doesn’t sound so great. The 50% relative risk reduction of Molnupiravir is the number that the press rightly emphasized. Focusing on the absolute risk reduction – without even mentioning the much larger relative risk reduction – is just a way to confuse people and to raise doubts about the motives of the mainstream media.
Of course, it is impossible to predict the future. But even if the vaccines currently being used save lives in the short-term, shouldn’t we consider the potential long-term consequences of different scenarios? If harmful virus selection due to vaccination is an even unlikely possible outcome, is this not inconsistent with the messaging that the only way out of this pandemic is through a mass global vaccination campaign using the current vaccines? . . .
The unlikely possibility that vaccination may cause harmful virus selection is completely consistent with the possibility that the best way out of the pandemic is through mass vaccination. The relevant question for policymakers is what we should do given the probabilities of different outcomes. The most important effects of vaccination are fewer deaths and serious illnesses in the short term, and the ability to resume normal activities. Unlikely bad outcomes merit consideration, but they do not automatically flip the balance of costs and benefits against vaccination. And we need to take account of potentially good long-run consequences of mass covid vaccination, such as reducing the risk of vaccine escape by reducing the prevalence of the virus.
While we are repeatedly assured that the Covid vaccines are “safe and effective”, is a more appropriate statement, given the currently available data, that they are “safe and effective at reducing certain adverse events and death in the short-term”? Mid- and long-term safety is assumed by authorities, who say that any risks are greatly outweighed by the benefits of the vaccine, which are all related to the decrease in harm related to Covid infections. Is it possible, though, that these mid- and longer-term outcomes (that have not yet been assessed) could actually yield significant harm across time? . . .
Public health officials have certainly not been perfect in their messaging, but it’s also always possible to criticize them and raise unfocused doubts about their competence and motives.
There are many people speaking out on the topic of the current Covid trajectory in different ways. Large numbers of highly educated and credentialed people are giving opinions (usually supported by data) that run counter to public health messaging in some way or another. If these people were fully and publicly supporting the current trajectory, we would be using their credentials to support their claims. Are we to believe that they are wrong simply because their opinions run counter to public health messaging? There is clearly more than one side to this story – why are we not being allowed to hear it?
Sounds nefarious. Some unidentified person or group is preventing us from hearing potentially critical information. Of course, she has managed to hear all these tendentious arguments, but whatever. That’s not really the point. The point is to flood the zone with shit, to create doubt and distrust.
PS: I ignored some of the most absurd claims in this essay, for example on adverse event reporting.