Articles of note

I have so much catching up to do. (Be sure you see my previous post on how ivermectin was viewed in 2017.)

I'm going to try to group like articles and comment a little about them. Feel free to leave your own thoughts in the comment box!

• Helen Andrews has been a spirited voice of reason. Here she warns of the urgency of saying "no to vaccine passports" -- the threat to freedom is real and there isn't much time left to protest.

"There are plenty of people who would consider [Chinese-style social credit systems] dystopian but who have no problem with a bare-bones vaccine passport. What those people have to understand is this: Once Americans get used to scanning a QR code every time they go into a building, there is no way to arrest that trajectory at the specific point you prefer. We have seen how easily decision-makers are captured by the most deranged Covid hawks. The same forces that just led to an outdoor mask mandate in Oregon, in the face of all scientific evidence, will be brought to bear on any vaccine passport. It will be a never-ending ratchet.

 

• City Journal has been doing a great job of analyzing Covid trends. John Tierney writes: The Panic Pandemic. 

"The notion that a team of prominent academics, who were not paid for their work in the study, would risk their reputations by skewing results for the sake of a $5,000 donation was absurd on its face—and even more ludicrous, given that Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, and the lead investigator, Eran Bendavid, said that they weren’t even aware of the donation while conducting the study. But Stanford University was so cowed by the online uproar that it subjected the researchers to a two-month fact-finding inquiry by an outside legal firm. The inquiry found no evidence of conflict of interest, but the smear campaign succeeded in sending a clear message to scientists everywhere: Don’t question the lockdown narrative."

 

• The frustration of not having a political party that represents the reasonable position, common sense, and the common good: from Joy Pullman at the Federalist: "Myriad Republican lawmakers are standing idly by, letting their voters be threatened with not being able to support their families or access education due to their medical and political beliefs about the just response to COVID."

• This site, OpenVAERS, puts the vaccine injury data in readable form. In order to give consent to any medical treatment or intervention, one must have information. This site puts some stats at your fingertips. Keep in mind that these are only the reported injuries and deaths. Any mom will tell you that many vaccine effects are just waived away by physicians -- I can remember doctors telling me that it would be normal for my child to experience fever, headaches, febrile seizures, and so on after a shot. You can be sure those were not reported -- by anyone.

• Here is a 60 Minutes segment from 1976 about the lack of informed consent, outright lies, and real injury regarding the Swine Flu episode. It's worth watching it all.    

          

Why is Mary Tyler Moore featured? Because the CDC lied and said she had taken the shot. She says her doctor wanted her to, but she was skeptical. Later he said he was glad she hadn't taken it.

Certainly there is nothing like Mike Wallace's investigation done today. Anything approaching it is immediately removed. I listened to NPR when the first vaccines were rolled out and their only questions were "how high should we jump" -- not a single effort to ascertain their safety, testing, effectiveness, or even handling. The known fact that some had to be stored in a deeply frozen state and had thawed was treated with almost frivolity, and the admission that people were being pulled off the street to take the rapidly expiring injections was accepted with wide-eyed wonder.  

I will post some more interesting articles soon!