The last three months of 2022 saw a drop in routine paediatric vaccination levels in New York City from 64.5% a year ago to 59.2%, a five-point drop. The New York Post has little doubt about who is to blame. According to a piece by the Editorial Board last week, it is because “city, state and federal officials lied again and again to the public about the efficacy of numerous Covid interventions including masking, social distancing, school closures and vaccines”.
Closing schools seemed sensible in the earliest days of 2020, but the data soon proved that young kids basically never get the bug. Most masks do nothing to reduce transmission, nor does six feet of social distancing. And making toddlers mask in school risks major developmental harm.
Heavy-lockdown states fared no better in health outcomes than mainly-open ones — and fared worse economically and most likely in mental health, too.
Every element of the public-health establishment from Dr. Anthony Fauci on down got many of these points wrong, even long after the science was clear. Worse still, government pushed censorship (as “misinformation”) of any discussion of the downsides of any intervention. And that included the real risks to younger men of cardiac problems associated with vaccination.
In short, the public-health establishment earned a ton of distrust. Tragically, that’s now feeding doubts about MMR jabs, leaving more New York kids vulnerable to measles, mumps and other childhood diseases that actually present real danger to the young — unlike Covid.
So what is the city doing in response to this catastrophe? “Confronting rising vaccination hesitancy through media campaigns, providing educational forums to providers and community-based organisations, and providing tools to talk about vaccine confidence with patients and parents.”
More lectures, in short, from the lost-credibility crew.
America needs a trustworthy public-health establishment, but getting it requires some kind of truth-and-reconciliation commission, with significant firings and massive, unflinching and public mea culpas from city, state and federal health departments — and reforms aiming to ensure they never make the same mistakes again.
Do it for the children.
Worth reading in full.
Of course, there will be those who blame ‘anti-vaxxers’ for spreading ‘harmful misinformation’ and call for even more severe censorship of anyone challenging the efficacy and safety of the mRNA vaccines. But if the New York Post is right, that will only increase mistrust in the medical establishment and lead to greater vaccine hesitancy – a doom loop that will end with the needless deaths of children who haven’t been vaccinated against diseases like measles. Is the New York Post right? The Editorial Board isn’t alone in believing that claiming public health policies are dictated by ‘the Science’ and smearing and no-platforming those who challenge the evidence has the opposite of its intended effect, increasing mistrust in public health authorities. The Royal Society published a report last year – ‘The Online Misinformation Environment: Understanding how the internet shapes people’s engagement with scientific information’ – that more or less came to the same conclusion. Professor Frank Kelly, who chaired the group that authored the report, said in a press release:
In the early days of the pandemic, science was too often painted as absolute and somehow not to be trusted when it corrects itself, but that prodding and testing of received wisdom is integral to the advancement of science, and society.
This is important to bear in mind when we are looking to limit scientific misinformation’s harms to society. Clamping down on claims outside the consensus may seem desirable, but it can hamper the scientific process and force genuinely malicious content underground.
Obviously, we don’t regard questioning the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, as ‘scientific misinformation’. But it is instructive that even those who are quick to dismiss dissenting points of view as ‘misinformation’, like the authors of this report, nevertheless don’t believe its helpful to suppress this dissent. Here is one of the report’s recommendations, entitled: ‘Governments and social media platforms should not rely on content removal as a solution to online scientific misinformation.’
Society benefits from honest and open discussion on the veracity of scientific claims. These discussions are an important part of the scientific process and should be protected. When these discussions risk causing harm to individuals or wider society, it is right to seek measures which can mitigate against this. This has often led to calls for online platforms to remove content and ban accounts However, whilst this approach may be effective and essential for illegal content (e.g. hate speech, terrorist content, child sexual abuse material) there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of this approach for scientific misinformation, and approaches to addressing the amplification of misinformation may be more effective
In addition, demonstrating a causal link between online misinformation and offline harm is difficult to achieve, and there is a risk that content removal may cause more harm than good by driving misinformation content (and people who may act upon it) towards harder-to-address corners of the internet.
Deciding what is and is not scientific misinformation is highly resource intensive and not always immediately possible to achieve as some scientific topics lack consensus or a trusted authority for platforms to seek advice from. What may be feasible and affordable for established social media platforms may be impractical or prohibitively expensive for emerging platforms which experience similar levels of engagement (e.g. views, uploads, users).
Furthermore, removing content may exacerbate feelings of distrust and be exploited by others to promote misinformation content.
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.
“Closing schools seemed sensible in the earliest days of 2020″
Yeah right for a disease that we knew affected badly almost exclusively the very old/ill.
The problem is there seems to be no requirement to demonstrate the link. It seems very much like making the claim is enough.
But it’s consistent with the zeitgeist. There are certain types of accusation that don’t need any proof. The accusation is enough.
Racism, misogyny, transphobia, anti-vax, homophobia, extreme right. These all come to mind as things you can casually accuse someone of without any need to prove any harm caused. You just have to say you’ve been offended or “harmed” and that’s good enough.
Let’s see who is to blame?
Big Pharma working with Big Media and Big government to force, coerce, lie and bribe billions of people into taking an experimental gene therapy.
Yes and it’s not over, These toxins have been approved for babies now. And all the old supposedly “good” vaccines are being replaced bit by bit by the same gene therapy mRNA tech dubious crud, encapsulated by the same highly suspicious NanoLipid Particles that freely move through the blood brain barrier and other organs of the body to do unknown long term damage to humanity, throw in the adjutant PEGs and it all looks like a catastrophic human population level Frankenstein experiment.
So yes now I am ABSOLUTELY antivaxx until the day I die.
Seconded!
Amen
I have to thank them for opening my eyes and make me go investigate vaccines, which I had never previously thought of doing.
The result of my investigation: no thanks and I wish I’d known sooner.
I feel exactly the same. Took two AZs and a Pfizer booster before I finally realised what was going on. Yeah, bit slow on the uptake, guilty as charged, but at least I made it to the other side. Now no jabs ever again. Vitamin D @ 5,000 IUs + K2 and that’s it. “A pill for every ill” is for the birds.
Well a decrease in people bringing their kids forward to be vaxxed is entirely predictable. I wonder how Big Pharma incorporated that into their business model going forward..
And on the topic of misinformation, Dr Byram Bridle and co, who make up the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, provide one hell of a rebuttal letter to the Council of Canadian Academies which can be downloaded from Dr Bridle’s substack or the CCCA website;
”The inability of the COVID-19 vaccines to maintain immunity against SARS-CoV-2 even after four inoculations within an 18-month period demonstrates their clear failure. Fortunately, the reduced virulence of the recent Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2, and the acquisition of natural immunity by greater than 85% of the population following their viral infection has brought the threat level of this pandemic markedly down, contrary to the pronouncements of our health authorities. This clearly obliviates the need to vaccinate the vast majority of our healthy population, including infants and children, using obsolete, unnecessary, unsafe and ultimately negatively-efficacious genetic mRNA inoculants falsely marketed as effective vaccines where one is never fully immunized. The only way to determine whether or not the current government is being candid with the Canadian people is to have open public dialogues to discuss the science behind the federal and provincial governments’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. While various forms of misinformation abound in social media with regards to COVID-19 vaccines and other treatments, there is also much confusion and downright misinformation emanating from public health authorities and self-proclaimed “trusted” media. Only by active promotion of discourse on controversial public health policies can the general public be properly served and make informed decisions about the best course of actions in confronting the COVID-19 pandemic and future health emergencies. No individual or organization can claim to “own the science.” The condescending approach of ‘health experts’ to assume the public cannot make informed decisions based on reliable information following a personal evaluation of the purported benefits and risks of a medical intervention is a complete reversal of the principles of evidence-based medicine and biomedical ethics.”
https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/
People are waking up that all the quacksines are poisons.
No one needs them.
They protect you from nothing. They cause massive injury and even death.
Autism is an obvious example, as is the Rona mRNA.
They are products to make a profit for a criminal industry and its criminal regulators and trough feeders.
Period.
I presume then that if bitten by a rabid animal you would refuse the rabies vaccine?
That’s not a vaccine, that’s a therapeutic.
The trust in medical systems in the west has been destroyed, I personally do not trust doctors any more as they pushed this poison! The damage they have done is hard to downplay
Perhaps in time they may regret calling the genetically engineered mRNA jabs “vaccines”.
For obvious reasons they did not want people to think they may be taking something that was genetically engineered in order to reprogram the cells in their body (which of course they do…).
Still, if it makes everyone question and decline “traditional vaccines” then that can only be a good thing.:-
http://vaccinepapers.org/
But not to worry, soon all jabs will be mRNA based.
What could possibly be wrong with that :-
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/when-is-mrna-not-really-mrna
In the early days of the
pandemicpLandemicThird Thirsty Thursday Freedom Drinks
For all freedom lovers to meet.
****
Thursday 16th February 7pm
The Golden Ball,
Room to the left of bar / main entrance
2 Golden Ball Lane,
Pinkneys Green
Maidenhead SL6 6NW
***
Back in the day one of my earliest blighted jobs was milking cows. I soon got these itchy spots between my fingers which turned out to be cow pox, which i believe has something to do with giving me immunity against smallpox. Pretty happy to have had this early vaccine and i caution against throwing the baby out with the bathwater now. The current crop of c-jabs obviously are having issues with the words safe and effective. The bullying, coercion and censorship surrounding them has now caused vaccine hesitancy for other proven jabs and this is a tragedy. Lets hope the rot stops with mums and dads in rich societies with decent healthcare, and doesnt spread to countries where the cheap vaccine option is the real only practical defence against the worst diseases known.
Having a childhood in Africa I had to have regular vaccinations against yellow fever & diphtheria & others.
although I dreaded having them, & used to feel ‘ropey’ for a few days, I don’t believe they did me any significant damage – & probably saved me from harm or death.
I think it is HIGHLY regrettable that mRNA inoculations are even allowed to be called vaccines.
I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole …& they shouldn’t be allowed to appropriate the name.
if they become mandatory at all, humanity will ruin itself.
The term should have been reserved for products that do a conventional job, such as preventing infection by xyz, with a new one being created for a novel product, as it generally is with anything novel.
That won’t help…
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-paper-an-estimated-13-million
Marc Girardot’s take is also noteworthy.