Click the play button to listen.
In this September 9 interview with Kyle Ramos of the Slightly Sophisticated podcast, I discuss problems with trying to rush a vaccine to market and why placing faith in vaccine technology as a solution to the COVID-19 pandemic is misguided. I also discuss the role of the mainstream media in manufacturing consent for extreme lockdown measures for which the endgame from the start has explicitly been mass vaccination.
In this context, I discuss how the New York Times has consistently deceived readers to that end, including by grossly misrepresenting its own cited sources from the scientific literature.
I also explain why critics of Sweden’s decision not to implement strict lockdown are wrong and how studies have estimated that the herd immunity threshold could be far lower than the lockdown advocates claim. I argue that liberty, not authoritarianism, is the solution.
Here are topics we cover in the interview:
- How the New York Times and other mainstream media serve to manufacture consent for harmful government policies with deceptive propaganda
- Concerns about “Operation Warp Speed” and rushing a COVID-19 to market, including the potential for “antibody-dependent immune enhancement”, a phenomenon in which the vaccine increases the risk of severe disease
- How AstraZeneca, which is developing a COVID-19 vaccine with Oxford University, halted its phase III trial due to a patient in the vaccine group developing transverse myelitis
- How the FDA vaccine approval process works and why it’s inadequate
- Problems with post-marketing observational studies and why they are no substitute for properly designed randomized placebo-controlled trials
- How observational studies are prone to selection biases such as health user bias, such as with the studies the CDC cites to support the claim flu shots greatly reduce elderly mortality
- Why observational studies can neither establish causation nor disprove a causal association
- Why the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is inadequate for detecting harms from vaccinations
- How certain vaccines have been associated with serious adverse events such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and narcolepsy
- The CDC’s acknowledgment that 94% of people whose deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 had other underlying medical conditions
- How the New York Times reports about COVID-19 in an alarmist manner, generating the fear necessary to manufacture consent for extreme lockdown measures
- For example, how Times’ claims about how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted are not only unsupported but are contradicted by its own cited sources
- How detection of viral RNA using RT-PCR tests is not necessarily indicative of the presence of infectious virus
- How the Times deceptively tried to discredit the WHO’s statements that truly asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 appears to be very rare
- How sensible policies would have protected those at highest risk while allowing younger, healthy people at low risk to go about their lives and keep the economy rolling, and how lockdown measures essentially did the opposite
- Why Sweden’s policy of not strictly locking down was a great success, and why critics of its policy are totally wrong
- What Sweden did do wrong, just the same as lockdown states in the US, but how unlike US policymakers, Sweden’s government acknowledged and accepted responsibility for that failure
- How, unlike with influenza deaths, the CDC has decided that deaths suspected to be associated with COVID-19 are included among “COVID-19” deaths along with lab-confirmed cases, making it impossible to parse the data
- Why lockdown advocates who argue that we need a vaccine rather than natural herd immunity are wrong (e.g., Sweden appears to have reached the herd immunity threshold)
- The original justification for the lockdowns versus the evolved justification now being used for continued lockdown measures, and why the reason is ludicrous
- Why liberty, not authoritarianism, is the solution to the problem presented by SARS-CoV-2