The following is a news analysis.
One thing that's come across loudly and clearly in the past year and a half is that supposed Covid "misinformation" is in the eye of the establishment beholder.
Too often when establishment figures and media publish factually untrue information or make false statements, it's overlooked or "fact-checked" as accurate.
But when off-narrative scientists and reporters publish factually correct information and studies, it is referred to as "debunked," or "disinformation."
One prime example is CDC's repeat Covid disinformation. In January last year, the agency's top officials and scientists got caught repeatedly, falsely claiming that Covid vaccine studies early-on showed there was a benefit to people getting vaccinated if they'd already had Covid. That was untrue. Even after the agency's officials admitted on audio recordings that their information was inaccurate, they continued to distribute it on their website to the public and to medical officials. To this day, nobody has been publicly held accountable for the dangerous disinformation.
Another, among dozens of examples, is CDC's director falsely telling the public that people who are vaccinated cannot spread Covid. Although others in the agency soon corrected their director's mistake, the fact that a medical doctor and head of the world's most important public health agency wouldn't have basic, accurate information is shocking.
A final big one to mention here is the many insistences, from Dr. Anthony Fauci on down, that masks weren't needed or aren't effective-- followed by edicts saying masks should mandatory-- followed by revelations that these very officials weren't wearing them themselves, or observing other mandates applied to others.
Amid the misinformation and confusion has been the sliding scale definition of "effectiveness" when it comes to Covid-19 vaccines.
Initially, many insisted the vaccines wouldn't be able to be given for years. That information, of course, proved false, but the "fact checkers" and censors didn't ban those responsible for the bad calls. Next, it was claimed that the vaccines were almost "100% effective" and would prevent infection.
Of course that turned out to be wildly false.
Each time a vaccine metric failed, instead of the fact checkers and censors calling out the bad information, they got on the propaganda train and redefined what "effectiveness" supposedly means.
"Well-- maybe it doesn't prevent infection but it's effective because it prevents spread," they falsely insisted.
"Well--maybe it doesn't prevent infection or spread but it's effective because it prevents illness," they then falsely insisted.
"Well--maybe it doesn't prevent infection or spread or illness but it's effective because it prevents hospitalization," they falsely insisted.
"Well--maybe it doesn't prevent infection or spread or illness or hospitalization but it's effective because it prevents death," they falsely insisted.
And so on.
- The Clot Factor: A Full Measure Town Hall
- Long Vax, Long Covid Resources
- Covid-19 Natural Immunity: The Definitive Summary
- Covid-19 Vaccine: 80 of the Most Common Adverse Events
- Covid-19 Vaccine Concerns Summary
- Covid-19 Vaccine Analysis: Common Adverse Events
- Covid-19 Origins: Separating Rumor from Fact (WATCH)
- Report a Possible Vaccine Adverse Event
They also falsely claimed Covid is a "pandemic of the unvaccinated," even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And as one-sided news articles are written about the supposed disinformation, they are responsible for spreading their own disinformation.
One example is an article in The Hill by a writer named Caroline Vakil, who appears to be trying to explain why Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was suspended from Twitter for misinformation.
Of course, in an unconflicted news environment, a real news story would look at Twitter's conflicts of interest and censorship on behalf of pharmaceutical interests.
Instead, The Hill article states misleading, out of context, or false information about Covid as if it is fact-- with no apparent self awareness or sense of irony.
Here are some of the problematic statements made in The Hill article:
- "[Greene] falsely claimed COVID-19 was 'not dangerous' for people who are under the age of 65 or not obese."
In fact, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has said Covid-19 is a mild disease for most people, with a majority suffering few or no symptoms. CDC has acknowleged it is largely a non-serious disease for younger people and/or those who are not obese.
2. "[Greene] claimed that 'these vaccines are failing and do not reduce the spread of the virus & neither do masks."
In fact, the vaccines have proven to fail in terms of infection and spread. And they are not effectives as once claimed or hoped in preventing all serious illness, hospitalization or death. Additionally, they have fallen disappointingly short in terms of duration, with some recommended for four shots inside of one year because the original shots are not working. When it comes to masks, many scientists believe they do not mitigate the spread of Covid, and since President Biden and many of our leaders have chosen to go without them even in situations where they are mandated, their view seems to support lack of effectiveness for masking.
3. "The COVID-19 vaccines have proved to be effective against severe infections."
This statement is, at the very least, debatable. Certainly, the vaccines have not been universally effective against severe infections. Colin Powell was vaccinated, but died of Covid. Thousands of others have gotten very sick or died of Covid after being fully vaccinated. Yet The Hill article makes this statement as if it's an undisputed fact.
4. "The disease is severe and deadly, especially among the elderly and the immunocompromised, and has repeatedly overwhelmed hospitals."
Again, this statement is debatable. It sorely lacks context and, without the proper context, makes implications that are not true. For example, according to CDC, the disease is not severe or deadly for most. As for it "repeatedly overwhelming hospitals," that may be true in some cities, but is not true for the vast majority of the geographic United States.
If there's one thing the bad reporting and censorship has taught most Americans: it's that when one-sided viewpoints are presented, and opinions and scientific studies that are contrary to the narrative are censored, it's a sign that we should seek out and learn about that information. Because it means powerful interests are trying to keep us from learning about it and making up our own mind.