Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff have written a good piece in UnHerd arguing that attempts to smear critics of lockdowns as Right-wingers have only served to discredit their opponents.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, tribal politics have pushed scientific discourse into the back seat. Scientists who provide their honest assessment of medical and public health data have often been subject to ad hominem attacks and slander.
When Left-leaning journalists defend the government’s pandemic strategies by falsely classifying opponents as Right-wing, it hurts the Left while boosting the Right. The latest example is an article in the New Republic with one of the most far-fetched personal attacks we have seen since March 2020 – a true accomplishment during a pandemic filled with logical somersaults.
The target is Urgency of Normal, a group of physicians and medical scientists arguing against the masking of toddlers and children. The group includes Dr Vinay Prasad, a physician, epidemiologist, and associate professor at the University of California in San Francisco. With colleagues at Harvard and the University of Colorado, he wrote the most thorough scientific review of the efficacy of masks against Covid. They concluded that “data to support masking kids was absolutely absent”.
The New Republic article is called ‘Why Is This Group of Doctors So Intent on Unmasking Kids?’ The straightforward answer is that the doctors concluded that there is no reliable scientific evidence that masks on children reduce disease spread alongside a strong presumption that they may harm some children. The New Republic dismisses this possibility, claiming that “the science is strong” that masks help to “quell the pandemic”, and that there is “‘little scientific disagreement”. The last point is self-evidently untrue given the participation by many eminent scientists in the Urgency of Normal itself.
The essay then goes full ad hominem, attempting to link Dr. Prasad to “libertarian” efforts by the Koch family to unmask children via a convoluted chain of supposed associations, each of which is weak and the combined effect of which is simply conspiracy (see below). It appears that the New Republic, once a fierce critic of Sen. Joe McCarthy, has now embraced McCarthy’s guilt-by-association techniques.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Hugo spots Pfizer connection to this incident
https://hugotalks.com/2022/03/29/nobody-is-talking-about-this-hugo-talks-oscars-willsmith/
Hugo Talks
Stand for freedom with our Yellow Boards
Thursday 31st March 5.30 to 6.30pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
Junction A3095 Foresters Way/
B3430 Nile Mile Ride
Bracknell RG40 3DR
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd
Wokingham RG40 2HD
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
Everything done by the lockdown maniacs has discredited them in every possible way. they have lied, bullied, cheated, got rich, ruined lives. They have covered themselves in shame.
Trouble is that not all despicable lockdown maniacs are brought to account. One of the worst was Neil O’Brien MP for Harborough who was not only an avid lockdown supporter but set up a website to harangue anyone who disagreed. One of the major proponents for not locking down was Professor Sunetra Gupta – one of the world’s leading epidemiologists who he called a ‘Covid Denier’. Prof Gupta was one of the three scientists behind the The Great Barrington Declaration which has now proved to be the way the Government should have acted.
I am a paid up member of the Tory party but I would like to see Neil O’Brien MP drummed out of Government and the Party.
Rather ironic, Toby, given you allowed what many here (me included) thought of as a ‘hit piece’ by Dr Roger Watson on Dr Sam Bailey and apparently refused her an article as a right of reply, just allowing her husband Mark to reply as a ‘subscriber’ in the BTL comments area and relying on Dr Bailey herself to publish a response article on her own website.
One person’s hit piece or smear article is another’s free speech, or not as the case may be, eh Toby? Whatever you, your colleagues or any of us may believe or not about Dr Watson’s arguments on Dr Bailey or her own conerning COVID or other scientific / medical issues, both are professionals and should’ve been accorded the same courtesy, and then leave it up to us readers to make our OWN minds up to which they believe.
That’s what FREE SPEECH should be all about.
I would like to know whether blood or donated organs contaminated with the “vaccine” are being used on other patients. I’m guessing the answer is yes but would like confirmation, if anyone knows.
A question I’d like to see answered: Why are so many allegedly skeptical and cynical journalists so unwilling to question or challenge the pronouncements of alleged “authorities?”
As far as I can tell, the “groupthink” in corporate newsrooms on Covid topics approaches 100 percent conformity.
I wonder how many DS readers can identify ONE journalist from their region’s main news source who has questioned any aspect of the “authorized” Covid narrative.
In my state of Alabama, our leading news source is al.com – which is a website consisting of three (formerly) large newspapers The Birmingham News, The Mobile Press Register and the Huntsville Times. This website has maybe 20 reporters who have routinely written COVID stories. I check this site every day. In two-plus years, I cannot think of ONE story or one reporter who has written an article skeptical of, say, the efficacy of masks, of the effectiveness of vaccines or the ineffectiveness of lockdowns preventing virus spread.
Wouldn’t one think that in 800 days, the entire roster of journalists at these three newspapers would have produced ONE such story? If one thinks this, one would be wrong.
As far as I am concerned, the biggest story of them all is that a genuine “watchdog” press is now almost extinct (at least at corporate or mainstream sites with large audiences). In these newsrooms, if an “expert” or “authority” says something is true, this is not to be challenged. Or: If some intelligent and knowledgeable person does challenge the conventional wisdom, this person’s views should NOT be reported to their readers.
When there is no diversity of opinion or thinking allowed in newsrooms – when everyone thinks exactly alike about key issues – there’s no way for any faux narratives to be exposed.
This groupthink influences thinking on myriad subjects, not just COVID. Who knows how many important investigations will never be authorized because no reporter or editor will suggest such investigations. Or: They don’t suggest them because they know they would probably be fired for suggesting them.
Anyway, The New Republic and every other establishment press organization should “investigate” its own biased, one-sided “coverage” and tell us how presenting only one side of any important issue is good for society.
As I’ve posted several times, before any corrupt “swamp” could really be drained, there’s going to have to be a major purge of newsrooms … but this will happen about the same time a mainstream media organization runs a major piece revealing that, say, the vaccines are really not “effective” and may be harming millions of people … In other words, this is NOT going to happen.
Since this is not going to happen, the best “truth seekers” can hope for is that more entrepreneurs start sites like The Daily Skeptic (and then hope Big Brother doesn’t shut down such sites under the guise of “protecting” the masses from “disinformation.”).
Although the media cleverly keep it a secret from us, the European Parliament is about to vote for universal mandatory EU covid passports. You will find the documentation in the appendix.
However, EU citizens have the right to send feedback, opinions and comments by 8 April 2022. The European Commission publishes all comments received on its website and analyzes them after the deadline.
Anyone who is interested in expressing (again, politely and factually necessary) disagreement can do so. It is possible to write for example:
“I do not agree with the extension of the obligation to provide a certificate of vaccination, test or recovery in connection with COVID-19 as a condition for exercising the right of free movement of European Union citizens.”
The website has the option to switch to Czech and comments can also be sent in Czech. To send an opinion, it is necessary to register or log in using logins on social networks.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13375-Extension-of-EU-Digital-COVID-Certificate-Regulation_en
Ofcom has forbidden the media from mentioning anything negative about the vaccines, which is why so many people know nothing about the Yellow Card reporting system, or the growing number of deaths and injuries.
We should all write to Ofcom. I’ll do it today.
Someone writing a headline like Why Is This Group of Doctors So Intent on Unmasking Kids? ought to be deported to China for life (if the Chinese won’t have him, that would be his problem).
It is a sad irony that those unfamiliar with history keep referring to Senator Joe McCarthy in such disparaging terms.
His fully justifable crusade exposing the infiltration of Communism in America has been fully borne out. Look at the Democrat party and tell me was he right?
It is like people referring to king Chanute incorrectly, when all he did was show his sycophants that he was human and could NOT turn back the tide.
“Look at the Democrat party and tell me was he right?”
Err, no.
Right about Cnut, wrong about McCarthy. He was a fearmonger who made false accusations and led smear campaigns. Hardly a champion of free speech or liberty.
McCarthy crusaded against communists, real and imaginary.
He randomly accused people of being communists, entirely without foundation
It’s standard procedure these days. Anyone who disagrees with the official narrative or the new world order is automatically smeared as a right wing, fascist or similar pejorative.
A pox on all of it (though it is very hard to resist)..
Analyse; then support, critique or attack the argument as you choose – rather than putting a stop to thought by labelling it. The labels all tell you that no further thinking is required.
There is an additional problem. There’s vast disagreement on what is meant by “right wing” and “left wing”. There is also more than one variety of fascist and many varieties of communists (including Christian communists, believe it or not).
I have never understood why scepticism about lockdown should automatically equate with support for right wing ideology. It was a real eye opener for me how those on the left and centre left blindly embraced such an authoritarian response to Covid when politicians of the past, left and right, had always held their nerve in similar situations. It has caused me to reconsider my position on a number of other issues, not least our uncritical support for the “green” revolution. As a society we have lost our way. Our values have become warped. Our leaders have lost the ability to think independently. This is what the professionalisation of the political class has led to.
I cannot agree that the political class have any degree of ‘professionalisation’; unless this term covers naked self interest, total lack of competence regarding scientific/technical/economic matters and venal decision making?
When does anybody wake up in the morning and say to themselves “what I need today is a politician”?
Within academia they appear to see the word “libertarian” as a deep insult. Sunetra Gupta has made similar comments, and was described as “shuddering” in an interview with the Times when she was asked if she was libertarian.
Many of these people don’t know what the word actually means. They seem to think Trump is a libertarian for example, although he wasn’t and never claimed to be. Even in this Unherd article it stresses the fact that the UoC Professor is on the left.
It’s not surprising that policies like lockdown come out of a culture that considers the principles of liberty and letting people live their own lives to be gross insults.