While Anthony Fauci is deservedly twisting in the wind, his reputation in tatters even though physically he’s not in prison, we are reminded that he is just one of many bureaucrats of the same ilk—which is how the government’s COVID policy came to be. Also a problem though was the sycophantic leftist press—including prominent anchors—fawning all over him, whether due to stupidity or political bias to Get Trump and ruin his economy.
Read more Nuclear war of the mind
But there is another group at fault, without which this would never have happened: the robotic science reporters.
Who can forget the FDA’s now-pulled tweet, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” regarding using ivermectin for COVID?
“You are not a horse. You are not a cow.” The FDA’s warning about the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 states it loud and clear. Learn more about ivermectin and why there’s misinformation about using it for COVID-19: https://t.co/73nFAgLMK4 pic.twitter.com/t175ndOlzu
— UCLA Health (@UCLAHealth) September 20, 2021
Well, what I can’t forget is that this tweet was generally reported by the media without commenting that ivermectin was, at least until it was effectively banned, commonly prescribed in pill form for humans in human dosages to be picked up at the pharmacy. That is not editorial, that is fact, and was highly relevant in countering the FDA animal narrative. Even Fox News was not immune to this: Check out this piece by a Fox News health reporter at the time, whose narrative about animals followed that of the FDA. As another example, why didn’t science reporters tell us that the CDC’s recommendation to wear masks violated its own printed coronavirus guidelines to date based on decades of research? As a third example, after it became clear that, initial promises to the contrary, you can indeed catch COVID after being vaccinated, not only Joe Biden but senior Pfizer reps and many health officials declared that the vaccinated get milder cases on average, as evidenced by hospitalizations. Well, even many laymen would know or could easily find out that you cannot accurately compare such hospitalization results without a clinical trial ensuring that the observed populations are comparable, but that no such trial was being conducted since vaccine producers such as Pfizer had conveniently ended their clinical trials long before. In other words, everyone should have known in real time that they were, if not lying, relying on untrustworthy anecdotes. Where were the science reporters to tell us their claim could not be supported? Did it have anything to do with even right-leaning media getting paid by the U.S. government to air advertisements promoting the COVID vaccine, which may have compromised their objectivity?
Let’s take a more recent example, from HealthDay but syndicated to Newsmax, appearing on June 30: Major Study Supports Same-Day COVID, Flu Vaccination. It begins:
Read more The Democrats’ Inflation ‘Reduction’ Act made healthcare more expensive
One trip to the pharmacy may be all you need to protect yourself from COVID-19 and the flu this fall.
A new study — published today in the Annals of Internal Medicine — found that getting both vaccines at the same visit is no riskier than getting a flu shot alone.
You get the gist. Nowhere does the science reporter entertain the idea it might be preferable not to get the vaccines at all. Nor is there any critical analysis of basic facts, so I’ll supply some of them, most gleaned from reading the cited, linked study: The disclosure info reveals that the lead author is a consultant to Pfizer. (Is it racist to say I’m a bit nervous that he has a Chinese name?) Participants were tracked for only 90 days, so longer-term effects would not be detected. The study was on veterans, an older group at lower risk for myocarditis and the like. Previous studies compared COVID booster and flu vaccines to COVID booster alone, so the comparison groups are different. Some of the COVID vaccines used in the study were of milder form than the original versions (but so is COVID, and if it’s mild and no longer fatal, why would you take a vaccine now?). A reader of the Newsmax article, and certainly one who sees only the title, may conclude he might as well get both shots, exactly what the pharmaceutical industry wants.
Now I get there is a difference between a science reporter and a science writer, but the above examples do not require months of research and a long article, just a few sentences for context. Is simply re-wording a press release all we can expect from them? Is that all they’re capable of? If it’s intentional bias or fear of getting banned from mainstream media, are there no conservative science reporters who can do better? I get too that, as stated above, ad money and syndicated articles also are part of the problem. We need to get science reporters to do their job, and COVID-like dis-, mis-, mal-, and non-information will be countered.
Read more Trump speaks loudly and carries a huge stick
W.A. Eliot is a pseudonym.
Image generated by ChatGPT.