While the so-called “fact checkers” deliberately ignore or tendentiously reinterpret scientific findings, renowned doctors and scientists continue to try to bring the truth about Covid-19 and the experimental vaccines to light.
It was one of those moments you don't soon forget. Dr. Aseem Malhotra, a renowned cardiologist, sits on the “Diary of a CEO” podcast and is asked if there would have been fewer deaths without vaccination. His answer: a simple “yes”. What followed was predictable - a storm of indignation and hastily summoned “fact-checkers” swinging their truth clubs.
The organization “Full Fact” was particularly eager, proclaiming with the subtlety of a sledgehammer: “False. There is clear evidence that the vaccines have saved far more lives than they have cost.” Well, if it were that clear, we wouldn't need science anymore.
The reality is more complex than our self-appointed truth-keepers would like, as the Brownstone Institute also explains. While they rely on observational studies and computer models - which are about as reliable as next year's weather forecasts - the scientific gold standard is still missing: randomized controlled trials on all-cause mortality.
Biased reinterpretation of data to perpetuate the lie
What we have instead is a statistical potpourri of distorted data. Vaccinated people who fall ill shortly after the injection are quickly classified as unvaccinated. Side effects disappear into the “not vaccine-related” drawer, and anyone who asks critical questions is declared a contrarian.
What's more, in the clinical trials, a serious adverse event occurred in around one in 800 people. With billions of doses administered, this is an alarming result.
By comparison, the rate for conventional vaccines is 1-2 per million. But who likes to do the math when the result could be inconvenient? The excess mortality rate is even more interesting. In countries with a high vaccination rate, this was higher in 2021 than in the “horror year” of 2020 - a phenomenon that apologists for the no-alternative vaccination campaign are reluctant to explain.
Thousands of scientists support the Hope Accord
Dr. Malhotra is by no means alone in his assessment. Thousands of doctors and scientists have joined the “Hope Accord”, which calls for a reassessment of the vaccination strategy. But apparently it is easier to dismiss critical voices as “misinformation” than to deal with uncomfortable questions.
The bitter irony is that those who constantly preach “follow the science” are ignoring a cornerstone of scientific work - the critical examination of hypotheses.
Instead, computer models are declared to be the new Bible and correlations are simply reinterpreted as causalities.
Perhaps we should admit to ourselves that the truth is more complicated than a fact checker. And that real science thrives on doubt, not on hasty certainties. But that would probably be too much of an imposition for our self-appointed guardians of truth.
Comments