WaPo: “Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked”
“Sen. Cotton (R-Ark.) repeated a fringe theory suggesting ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan”https://t.co/2n9dq6MjJIpic.twitter.com/rI5LEKHcRD
MSNBC Nicolle Wallace: “Donald Trump [is] turning his intelligence community to now investigate a conspiracy theory about COVID coming from a lab in Wuhan.” https://t.co/OiDhHCCkFR
It feels like it’s become a habit of the left to believe something for ideological reasons but claim it’s because of science and then use whatever means are at their disposal to suppress disagreement. https://t.co/VwNFvAP66n
Unbelievable. A story like this used to be banned on Facebook, and the media went along with the ban. Senator Tom Cotton was ridiculed by the Wash Post when he suggested this possibility in January 2020. And through it all, China has lied. Unbelievable. https://t.co/btoqQSuC1a
Never forget that scientists told Dr. Fauci at the beginning of the pandemic the virus looked engineered and he then publicly covered up the lab leak theory, and was thanked for it by Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance, the company through which Fauci's NIH funded the Wuhan lab pic.twitter.com/5BB2xr6UFd
Why is this story so important? It shows: 1) unelected government officials have huge power to pursue dangerous agendas. 2) rather than holding them accountable, corporate media cover for them. 3) tech censorship ends up promoting rather than suppressing “disinformation.”
I’m embarrassed when I misspell someone’s name in copy, not when I spend two years in public trying to cover up the misdeeds of a tyrannical government that spread a deadly plague around the world https://t.co/Dv5X1pMsT3
The virus leaked from a lab in China and the Chinese government lied about and instead of going after them our media attacked Americans and called them racist and tried to demonize them for questioning the origins
Content creator Hotez is on cleanup duty after revelations that the coronavirus may have leaked from a lab.
He should be ignored as a political or medical commentator, stripped of his medical license, and investigated for any ties to China that may have compromised his opinions. pic.twitter.com/T9nSwjZCdT
Another reason for the left and media to hate him. 🙂
The American people deserve the full truth about #covid origins. No more whitewash. I will again introduce legislation to make the US government’s intelligence reports on covid open to the people https://t.co/6rKqPzPKO2
BREAKING: It’s official. Chloe Cole (@ChoooCole) has announced a lawsuit against Kaiser Permanente, the hospital and medical group that facilitated her medical transition as a minor, after her Notice of Intent to Sue in November was ignored by defendants.https://t.co/e79PNzFYNb
“What happened to Chloe at Kaiser should never happen to any child in America, and the Center for American Liberty is committed to protecting children like Chloe,” said Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban), attorney and CEO of the Center for American Liberty (@Liberty_Ctr).
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants coerced Cole into pursuing irreversible chemical and surgical interventions between the ages of 13 and 16 while “concealing less invasive treatments and by lying to her about her condition.”
This is the way. These people are mutilating disturbed kids for profit and if they start facing serious financial consequences for that, the landscape will change in a hurry.
“The Lancet medical journal this month published a review of 65 studies that concluded prior infection with Covid—i.e., natural immunity—is at least as protective as two doses of mRNA vaccines. The most surprising news was that the study made the mainstream press.
“Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds,” NBC reported on Feb. 16. The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan, Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, which slipped to 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. These results exceed what other studies have found for two and even three mRNA doses.
This comes after nearly three years of public-health officials’ dismissing the same hypothesis. But now that experts at the University of Washington have confirmed it in a leading—and left-leaning—journal, it’s fit to print.
The Lancet study’s vindication of natural immunity fits a pandemic pattern: The public-health clerisy rejects an argument that ostensibly threatens its authority; eventually it’s forced to soften its position in the face of incontrovertible evidence; and yet not once does it acknowledge its opponents were right.”
“The “experts” have been wrong so often about their policies and assertions about the covid virus that there have been pleas for a “pandemic amnesty.”
I would like now to take a look at one of my predictions about covid, related to the use of masks that was published in the autumn of 2020.
There are numerous other rules for good mask-wearing, including laundering after use. However, how many people actually grab a clean, fresh mask every time they use one? How many people properly launder (i.e., use bleach if washing by hand).
Californians have lived with mask mandates for over 6 months now. Perhaps it is a good time to review if they are working. A group of researchers, including A.J. Kay, author of “The Curve Is Already Flat,” graphed the timing of the mask mandates and COVID-19 deaths, showing a steep rise following their implementation.
…There has been a great deal of debate if masks prevent the spread of the coronavirus. However, the real question should be, “Do the strict mask mandates work?” They don’t.
Tom Jefferson, an Oxford epidemiologist, and 11 colleagues conducted the study for Cochrane, a British nonprofit that is widely considered the gold standard for its reviews of health care data. The Cochrane Study, as its now known, conclusions were based on 78 randomized controlled trials, six of them during the Covid pandemic, with a total of 610,872 participants in multiple countries.
The conclusions, which were summed up by Jefferson in The New York Times as part of an op-ed written by Bret Stephens is that mask mandates did nothing.
The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous.
“There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”
But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?
“Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson.
What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?
“They were convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies.”
So when a leading epidemiologist sums up a detailed review of a massive body of work and asserts mask mandates didn’t make a difference, the case is closed.
Not so fast. Not if you are Big Tech or Big Media, perhaps enjoying some connections to Big Pharma and/or Big Government.
In my quest to get information, I was limited in my search by this “helpful” suggestion from Google.”
—
“Then, I stumbled upon the Los Angeles Times‘ hot take on The New York Times op-ed.
In a nutshell, the author of that op-ed, Michael Hiltzik, neglects to mention the actual conclusion of the Oxford epidemiologist and bitterly clings to limited studies in his defense of mask mandates.
Among them are a study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where sailors lived and worked in close quarters, which found that masks produced a 70% reduced risk of infection.
Another study of 33,000 pupils in eight school districts in Massachusetts found an infection rate of 11.7% for unmasked and 1.7% for masked children.
During the 2021 outbreak of the Delta strain of COVID, outbreaks were 3½ times more likely in schools without masking rules compared with those with the mandates.
As an added bonus, Hilzik complains about “right-wingers” and “covid deniers” in a spectacularly elitist screed.”
ICYMI: Scott Adams’s long-running “Dilbert” comic strip has been dropped by the USA Today network of hundreds of newspapers, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and other publications.
This is the absolute truth what @ScottAdamsSays is saying here. He had to have known that all the coward newspapers would drop his Dilbert comic strip. I admire Scott Adams for doing it anyway. pic.twitter.com/sy0vhHutV2
“Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect. The NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain of function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Fauci lied. He knew NIH and NIAID money was sent to Wuhan via intermediary EcoHealth Alliance.
Newsweek, MSNBC etc. keep citing the same "expert" to refer to Republicans as fascists every few months despite her clearly having no idea what the term means. pic.twitter.com/OjKs13RcaD
The intelligence reporting has led to another media “my bad” moment where news outlets are shrugging that the theory may not be a conspiracy or racist theory after all…https://t.co/E2Fn8qDST4
…Censorship does not, as President Biden claims, save lives. It is more likely to cost lives by protecting approved views from challenge. It does not foster the truth any more than it fosters free speech.
Don’t be distracted by the sudden media interest in the lab leak story, which most of us knew was true some three years ago. It’s a distraction from the studies over the last few weeks from highly-respected researchers (as reported by Dr. Marty Makary) showing that:
1. Masks had NO impact on the epidemic trajectory (Cochran).
2. Natural immunity > vax immunity (Lancet).
3. Vax mandates did NOT increase vaccination rates (GMU).
4. Myocarditis up to 28x > after vax than Covid itself (Hoeg study).
Confused why its the Dept of Energy not the CDC or DHS involved in the Wuhan information
The article on masks suggests some success in enclosed spaces – naval vessels, classrooms, etc. This suggests masks have a role
Tychicus – vaccines mandates have no effect on vaccine rates? That’s counter intuitive. Many people will get vaccines when required for employment or travel.
The Chloe Cole case demonstrates the problem with the profit motive in health care. Health care companies are more likely to recommend unnecessary treatments if they can make money. Health care should be non-profit.
Wandering Views 
Attention media.
Your crow is now being served…..
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, in the good old days of like up to a week ago.
Kessler’s “fact checks” are a joke.
I would say some apologies are in order.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When they tell you who they are, believe them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another reason for the left and media to hate him. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sue them into bankruptcy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Say it with me now….
“Safe and effective…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nice of them to join us. And it only took them 3 years to admit the obvious facts.
“Three Years Late, the Lancet Recognizes Natural Immunity
The public-health clerisy rediscovers a principle of immunology it derided throughout the pandemic.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-years-late-the-lancet-recognizes-natural-immunity-great-barrington-declaration-tech-censor-antibodies-mandates-b3ba912c?mod=opinion_lead_pos6
“The Lancet medical journal this month published a review of 65 studies that concluded prior infection with Covid—i.e., natural immunity—is at least as protective as two doses of mRNA vaccines. The most surprising news was that the study made the mainstream press.
“Immunity acquired from a Covid infection is as protective as vaccination against severe illness and death, study finds,” NBC reported on Feb. 16. The study found that prior infection offered 78.6% protection against reinfection from the original Wuhan, Alpha or Delta variants at 40 weeks, which slipped to 36.1% against Omicron. Protection against severe illness remained around 90% across all variants after 40 weeks. These results exceed what other studies have found for two and even three mRNA doses.
This comes after nearly three years of public-health officials’ dismissing the same hypothesis. But now that experts at the University of Washington have confirmed it in a leading—and left-leaning—journal, it’s fit to print.
The Lancet study’s vindication of natural immunity fits a pandemic pattern: The public-health clerisy rejects an argument that ostensibly threatens its authority; eventually it’s forced to soften its position in the face of incontrovertible evidence; and yet not once does it acknowledge its opponents were right.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Some media outlets are having difficulty dealing with reality.
“Los Angeles Times Bitterly Clings to Mask Mandates and Decries “Covid Deniers”
Meanwhile, Google is obfuscating searches on the new Cochrane Study that suggests mask mandates ‘did nothing’”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/02/los-angeles-times-bitterly-clings-to-mask-mandates-and-decries-covid-deniers/
“The “experts” have been wrong so often about their policies and assertions about the covid virus that there have been pleas for a “pandemic amnesty.”
I would like now to take a look at one of my predictions about covid, related to the use of masks that was published in the autumn of 2020.
There are numerous other rules for good mask-wearing, including laundering after use. However, how many people actually grab a clean, fresh mask every time they use one? How many people properly launder (i.e., use bleach if washing by hand).
Californians have lived with mask mandates for over 6 months now. Perhaps it is a good time to review if they are working. A group of researchers, including A.J. Kay, author of “The Curve Is Already Flat,” graphed the timing of the mask mandates and COVID-19 deaths, showing a steep rise following their implementation.
…There has been a great deal of debate if masks prevent the spread of the coronavirus. However, the real question should be, “Do the strict mask mandates work?” They don’t.
Tom Jefferson, an Oxford epidemiologist, and 11 colleagues conducted the study for Cochrane, a British nonprofit that is widely considered the gold standard for its reviews of health care data. The Cochrane Study, as its now known, conclusions were based on 78 randomized controlled trials, six of them during the Covid pandemic, with a total of 610,872 participants in multiple countries.
The conclusions, which were summed up by Jefferson in The New York Times as part of an op-ed written by Bret Stephens is that mask mandates did nothing.
The most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19 — was published late last month. Its conclusions, said Tom Jefferson, the Oxford epidemiologist who is its lead author, were unambiguous.
“There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi. “Full stop.”
But, wait, hold on. What about N-95 masks, as opposed to lower-quality surgical or cloth masks?
“Makes no difference — none of it,” said Jefferson.
What about the studies that initially persuaded policymakers to impose mask mandates?
“They were convinced by nonrandomized studies, flawed observational studies.”
So when a leading epidemiologist sums up a detailed review of a massive body of work and asserts mask mandates didn’t make a difference, the case is closed.
Not so fast. Not if you are Big Tech or Big Media, perhaps enjoying some connections to Big Pharma and/or Big Government.
In my quest to get information, I was limited in my search by this “helpful” suggestion from Google.”
—
“Then, I stumbled upon the Los Angeles Times‘ hot take on The New York Times op-ed.
In a nutshell, the author of that op-ed, Michael Hiltzik, neglects to mention the actual conclusion of the Oxford epidemiologist and bitterly clings to limited studies in his defense of mask mandates.
Among them are a study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, where sailors lived and worked in close quarters, which found that masks produced a 70% reduced risk of infection.
Another study of 33,000 pupils in eight school districts in Massachusetts found an infection rate of 11.7% for unmasked and 1.7% for masked children.
During the 2021 outbreak of the Delta strain of COVID, outbreaks were 3½ times more likely in schools without masking rules compared with those with the mandates.
As an added bonus, Hilzik complains about “right-wingers” and “covid deniers” in a spectacularly elitist screed.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dilbert is getting cancelled….
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
Lather, rinse, repeat….
Next verse, same as the first…..
Meet the new worst thing ever. TDS is morphing into DDS.
Poor thing!
Cope harder.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Clown media members are not happy today.
LikeLike
Don’t be distracted by the sudden media interest in the lab leak story, which most of us knew was true some three years ago. It’s a distraction from the studies over the last few weeks from highly-respected researchers (as reported by Dr. Marty Makary) showing that:
1. Masks had NO impact on the epidemic trajectory (Cochran).
2. Natural immunity > vax immunity (Lancet).
3. Vax mandates did NOT increase vaccination rates (GMU).
4. Myocarditis up to 28x > after vax than Covid itself (Hoeg study).
LikeLike
Micahel Moore on Jimmy Carter;
https://www.michaelmoore.com/p/dear-president-carter?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email&fbclid=IwAR136nRFc46GVpwe51oyJy5fgtvpDM4mAQYSebYVYkW-oU0MTfAqhj-tE-U
LikeLike
Confused why its the Dept of Energy not the CDC or DHS involved in the Wuhan information
The article on masks suggests some success in enclosed spaces – naval vessels, classrooms, etc. This suggests masks have a role
Tychicus – vaccines mandates have no effect on vaccine rates? That’s counter intuitive. Many people will get vaccines when required for employment or travel.
The Chloe Cole case demonstrates the problem with the profit motive in health care. Health care companies are more likely to recommend unnecessary treatments if they can make money. Health care should be non-profit.
LikeLike