Loading ...SOMETHING IS CHANGING
J C
A study published yesterday in the journal Vaccine titled “Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults.”
The researchers used Pfizer and Moderna’s own randomized, placebo-controlled trials and compared them against an industry list of common adverse events following vaccination. Guess what they found?
Combined, there was a 16% higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients … points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses … release of participant level datasets… The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36% higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group[.]
That’s not good for business.
You can add this study to the ever-growing list of journal articles critical of the jabs. Remember: jab-critical studies have been embargoed until just recently; journal editors have simply refused to print them because they “could cause vaccine hesitancy.”
Something is changing
more
There was more evidence of the pivot when, a couple weeks ago, the New York Post ran an op-ed headlined, “Too Little, Too Late: Disband the CDC Now.” The author argued that, given the CDC’s politicization during the pandemic, such as by involving the teachers’ unions in crafting covid guidance, and its many mistakes and missteps and revolving advice, the CDC is beyond any possible hope of reorganization.
During its 2½ years of dealing with COVID, the CDC has failed to do these things at any level. It has become completely politicized and is now flailing around for relevance updating guidance that never made sense in the first place. It has caused Americans much harm. Disband it now.
I couldn’t possibly agree more. Why is the government in the health business anyways? Pull the plug.
But there’s more. This New York Post op-ed seems to have been the start of a trend.
? In perhaps the most remarkable recent example of the developing narrative pivot, the New York Times ran a “guest essay” Tuesday titled, “Why Many Americans Turned on Anthony Fauci.”
The article begins by asking, “how by 2022 did Dr. Fauci become, to so many, a villain?”
My first thought was, how much time do you have?
The author acknowledges that a lot of “wacky” conspiracy theories and so-called “misinformation” prominently featured that monstrous puppy torturer Fauci, and maybe some of those claims were unfair. But then it gets to the point:
[H]owever much truth there is to the story that Dr. Fauci was a victim of our polarized era and broken media environment, it is also ??partial?? and simplistic??. It amounts to insisting that skepticism of the good doctor must have been everyone’s fault but his own.
The author doesn’t stop with Fauci. He went after the CDC, too:
[T]?here has been a growing willingness by mainstream observers, and even the ?Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to admit that the public health response to Covid-19 was in many ways a failure. It failed the million Americans who died. And it failed the living by being bumbling?? and incoherent.
You don’t say.
But then the article actually listed Fauci’s many failures. You might ask yourself, when have you ever seen a list of Fauci’s mistakes printed in the New York Times? Here’s the list:
Dr. Fauci became the face of American public health’s incoherent response to the pandemic. He urged the country to shut down weeks after dismissing early Covid worries as a baseless fear of “going to a Chinese restaurant”; he encouraged masking weeks after counseling against it; he aggressively cast the lab leak theory as fringe (though possible) despite many scientists wanting more to be done on lab safety. ?Just this April, Dr. Fauci said one day that we were “out of the pandemic phase” and the next day that we were “still experiencing a pandemic.”
Remember, this appeared in the New York Times. The Left’s Gold Standard. The anti-Fauci essay was approved by the Times’ editors.
Fauci’s flip-flop on masking may be his undoing. Here’s how the Times’ essay described that shining example of bureaucratic flexibility:
There was ?nothing stopping Dr. Fauci in those chaotic early weeks from saying “Masks might help, but doctors and nurses need them more now,” or even just “We’re not sure yet.” This would have been far closer to accurately representing scientific understanding and would have done wonders in case the answer later changed, as many elements of guidance were bound to. ?
Sigh. How many times have I made the exact same point? But it wasn’t JUST the mask flip. The Times essayist also made the more fundamental point, that Fauci HIMSELF undermined public trust in science by fantastically claiming the he personally embodied “science:”
In 2021 [Fauci] would say that his foes were “really criticizing science, because I represent science,” implying that the only possible reason to criticize him was animus toward science. It was this?? that became so destructive to trust: the idea that science is a force that demands things of the public yet relieves leaders of accountability.
I couldn’t have said it any better. But maybe the most important paragraph in the story is this next one, which accurately and persuasively describes the most terrible implications of what the public health establishment has wrought:
There’s something appealing about the view that science floats loftily above us all, accessible to a select few with years of rigorous training in its methods. But, as romantic visions often do, it fell hard to earth. The follow-the-science logic we have lived under during Covid demands wartime sacrifices from the public while rationalizing sloth from leaders and institutions in mobilizing tools to relieve the burden. It became an easy out for bureaucratic turf protection, lost dynamism and institutional fecklessness. “Follow the science” became a failure to lead, a way to shift the onus of responsibility from presidents, Congress, health authorities and school boards onto the public.
That’s a powerful indictment of the fundamentally destructive nature of public health’s pandemic excesses. Finally, the essay’s remarkable conclusion explicitly called for Fauci’s entire legacy to be labeled as a FAILURE:
The public health establishment will not be able to do better than this without real soul-searching. And that will require swallowing a bitter pill: labeling Dr. Fauci’s Covid legacy and the approach it embodied a failure… we must learn to see science as a vehicle, not a dodge, for human agency: something we are right to make demands of, right at times to get angry at, whose terrible failures it must own along with its triumphs.
Where have all these public health experts who so keenly recognize Fauci’s failure been for the last two years? Oh, well.
This New York Times essay is remarkable, not just for existing at all; it’s most remarkable for where it appeared — featured in the New York Times. There is an extraordinary narrative pivot quietly underway.
Unlike previous pivots where the government and its media allies gave clear advance signals where it was going, with this one, I can’t tell yet. But it’s going somewhere
I don’t give hacks like Fauci, or organizations like the CDC, any leeway at all. This was malevolence undergirded by stupidity and greed. Heinous crimes have been committed. Talking about mistakes in mask policy or shutdowns misses the point. This guy has made a fortune, and caused enormous misery and death, though garden variety corruption – corruption that could easily be proved.
Follow the money………