Reading Progress:

Fact Check: Yes, Dr. Birx did change her tune on COVID-19 vaccines

by Aug 15, 2022Health Freedom, Special Reports2 comments

White House Coronavirus Task Force Response Coordinator Deborah Birx delivers remarks during a coronavirus update briefing Thursday, April 23, 2020, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks/Public Domain)
PolitiFact falsely claims that Dr. Deborah Birx never lied that COVID-19 vaccines would prevent virus transmission.

Reading Time: ( Word Count: )

()

__________

politifact

FACT CHECK

CLAIM: “No, Dr. Deborah Birx didn’t change her ‘tune’ on COVID vaccines.” “Birx’s past statements show she has remained largely consistent in her view that COVID-19 vaccines do not provide long-term immunity.”

VERDICT: FALSE

Introduction

In an appearance on Fox News no July 22, Dr. Deborah Birx, the former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator, made a startling admission. She said that she knew that COVID‑19 vaccines were not going to protect against infection and suggested that government officials had made a mistake by overplaying the ability of the vaccines to do so.

This was a reversal of her own position since she was among those who initially sold mass vaccination to the public as the path out of the pandemic. Two doses of COVID‑19 vaccine, we were told, would induce durable sterilizing immunity that would enable the development of herd immunity by stopping community spread of SARS‑CoV‑2, the coronavirus that causes COVID‑19.

This was the chorus of virtually the entire “public health” establishment, from government officials to health care providers. However, there has been a concerted effort by the mainstream media to gaslight us with attempts to deny that “public health” officials like Birx lied to the public to manufacture consent for the policy goal of achieving high vaccine uptake.

We are not supposed to remember, evidently, how the vaccines were initially sold to the public as being capable of inducing durable protection against infection, which would hence stop people from being able to spread the virus. This episode in history, the mainstream media thought controllers have determined, must be tossed down the memory hole.

“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection, and I think we overplayed the vaccines…”

An instructive example of this attempt to rewrite history is a recent “fact check” article from the Poynter Institute’s publication PolitiFact, which is partnered with Facebook to suppress certain information about COVID‑19 vaccines and public policy.

The PolitiFact article, written by Yacob Reyes, claims that Birx did not change her position. She has always been consistent in acknowledging that COVID‑19 vaccines do not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the disease, according to Reyes.

However, Reyes’ argument is falsified even by his own cited sources, which prove that Birx absolutely did reverse herself in terms of her public comments on the ability of the vaccines to prevent infection and transmission. 

Birx’s Admission That She Knew COVID‑19 Vaccines Wouldn’t Prevent Transmission

In an appearance on Fox News on July 22, Dr. Birx touted Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid as a treatment for COVID‑19 and acknowledged that the vaccines do not prevent viral transmission. When asked why unvaccinated people should get COVID‑19 vaccines when so many vaccinated and boosted people are getting COVID‑19, she replied (emphasis added):

Well, if you’re across the south and you’re in the middle of this wave, what’s going to save you right now is Paxlovid. But once we get through this wave, during that lull, you should get vaccinated and boosted because we do believe it will protect you, especially if you’re over 70. I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection, and I think we overplayed the vaccines, and it made people then worry that it’s not going to protect against severe disease and hospitalization. It will, but let’s be very clear: 50 percent of the people who died from the Omicron surge were older, vaccinated.

The PolitFact article takes issue with people saying that this represents a change of position from Birx. “Now some social media users”, Reyes asserts, “are taking that comment out of context, with one viral Facebook post suggesting it shows she ‘changed her story’ on the efficacy of vaccines.”

The self-described “fact checker” claims that this is “FALSE” and notes that the Facebook post “was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”

This is a reference to how Facebook covers certain posts with a warning to users that the post contains alleged misinformation, which Facebook has determined is an effective way to prevent people from clicking links and becoming exposed to the information being shared. In addition to covering posts with “fact check” warnings, Facebook sometimes removes posts altogether. Facebook also manipulates its algorithms to reduce the visibility of posts from individuals or pages that frequently share flagged content, and it may outright ban users from the platform for repeated alleged offenses.

However, frequently, the information being suppressed is truthful while the supposed “fact check” articles Facebook cites as the basis for its censorship consist of disinformation.

This PolitiFact article by Yacob Reyes is an enlightening example of such deceit and hypocrisy.

“A look at Birx’s full statements on Fox and an examination of her prior comments about the vaccines”, Reyes asserts, “show she neither changed her tune nor admitted that the vaccines ‘don’t work.’” He claims that Birx has rather “remained largely consistent in saying that COVID‑19 vaccines do not provide long-term immunity”.

“Now some social media users are taking that comment out of context, with one viral Facebook post suggesting it shows she ‘changed her story’ on the efficacy of vaccines.”

However, that counterclaim from PolitiFact is demonstrably false. PolitiFact is itself hypocritically spreading disinformation. The observation that Birx has “changed her tune” is perfectly accurate, and PolitiFact is in effect colluding to censor the truth about how “public health” officials sold the vaccines to the public on the basis of a lie, thus systematically violating individuals’ right to informed consent.

Furthermore, it is demonstrable that the author of the fake “fact check”, Yacob Reyes, is spreading this disinformation willfully. In fact, PolitiFact’s attempt to gaslight and disinform is so transparent that the very sources it cites to try to substantiate its counterclaim actually prove that Birx did initially claim—like so many other “public health” officials—that COVID‑19 vaccines would stop people from spreading the virus.

In light of Birx’s recent statement that she knew that the vaccines would not prevent transmission, the logical corollary is that while serving on the White House’s COVID‑19 task force, Dr. Birx deliberately lied to the public in order to manufacture consent for the government’s policy aim of achieving high vaccine uptake.

That is the truth that the thought-controllers do not want the public to know. Hence this vain attempt by PolitiFact to gaslight us with the false claim that Birx’s early claims about vaccine effectiveness are consistent with her recent admission that she knew they would not prevent transmission.

Let us now correct the historical record.

PolitiFact’s Disingenuous Strawman Argumentation

Tellingly, the author of the PolitiFact article, Yacob Reyes, also employs a common propaganda device utilized in faux “fact check” articles purporting to debunk “misinformation”: the strawman argument.

“We found no record of Birx saying the vaccine could provide complete protection against infection”, Reyes writes.

This is a logical fallacy known as the “strawman”. Rather than addressing the genuine argument that Birx’s recent admission shows that she had lied to the public by initially claiming the vaccines would be highly effective at preventing transmission, Reyes attempts to shift the burden of proof by instead arguing a strawman of his own manufacture.

“We found no record of Birx saying the vaccine could provide complete protection against infection.”

While “complete protection” is an unscientific term that Reyes does not define for us, the implied syllogism is that since Birx never claimed that the vaccines would be 100 percent effective at preventing infection, therefore she has not changed her position.

However, the question is not whether Birx said that the vaccines would be 100 percent effective at preventing infection or otherwise described the protection as “complete”. The real question is whether she had claimed that the vaccines would be effective at preventing infection and transmission.

We can stipulate that Birx never claimed that COVID‑19 vaccines would provide “complete” protection against infection, yet it remains true that she did initially claim that they would prevent viral transmission, thereby ending the pandemic by conferring “herd immunity”. As will be shown, the fact that Birx did so is demonstrated by Reyes’ own cited sources.

Reyes follows up on his strawman argument with the statement, “In fact, as early as December 2020, she said that [the COVID‑19 vaccine] could not curtail an uptick in COVID‑19 cases.” He quotes Birx as having said on December 6, 2020, “I want to be very frank to the American people: The vaccine is critical, but it’s not going to save us from this current surge.”

Reyes’ argument is thus that this quote proves that Birx had acknowledged to the American people from the start that the vaccines would not be effective for preventing transmission, and thus that her recent acknowledgment of that fact was not a change of position.

Contrary to the purpose for which PolitiFact produces this quote, it simply was not a comment about the effectiveness of the vaccine. It was a comment about the unavailability of the vaccine.

However, in this instance it is Reyes who is guilty of taking a statement of Birx’s out of context.

Birx made that statement during an interview with NBC. However, even without watching the interview to learn the full context in which it was made, it is obvious that, contrary to PolitiFact’s characterization, Birx was not making a statement about the effectiveness of COVID‑19 vaccines. The quote simply was not an acknowledgment that the vaccines would not prevent transmission.

This is obvious because on December 6, 2020, COVID‑19 vaccines weren’t even available. The FDA had not yet authorized any COVID‑19 vaccine for emergency use. The first authorization didn’t happen until later that month. And when the vaccines were first rolled out, due to limited supply, they prioritized people at high risk, so they remained unavailable at first to most of the population.

It is tautological that a vaccine that had been administered to precisely zero people outside of clinical trials couldn’t possibly help to mitigate the COVID‑19 wave taking place at the time she was speaking. Contrary to the purpose for which PolitiFact produces this quote, it simply was not a comment about the effectiveness of the vaccine. It was a comment about the unavailability of the vaccine.

As if it wasn’t obvious enough from the date of the comment, a review of the NBC interview confirms that PolitiFact is itself guilty of taking Birx’s statement out of context. “We won’t have a vaccine for even the most vulnerable Americans”, Birx said during the interview. “I’m thrilled with the vaccines, but we won’t have them for the most vulnerable Americans until February.”

Advocating lockdown measures, Birx added, “But I want to be very frank with the American people. The vaccine is critical, but it’s not going to save us from this current surge. Only we can save us from this current surge.”

In sum, the quote from Birx provided by PolitiFact does not show what PolitiFact claims. It simply is not evidence that Birx had always been truthful with the public about the ineffectiveness of COVID‑19 vaccines at preventing viral transmission.

PolitiFact’s “Fact Check” Is Debunked by Its Own Source

After hypocritically quoting Birx out of context to support his argument, Reyes continues his ridiculous “fact check” article by citing a source that completely debunks his own counterclaim.

“Later that month,” the PolitiFact article continues, “Birx said in a televised interview that much was still unknown about the level of protection the vaccines provide. She distinguished between what was known about the vaccine’s ability to prevent infection and what was known about its ability to prevent disease.”

It is true that in that instance, Birx admitted that it was unknown whether COVID‑19 vaccine would prevent transmission. But a review of the primary source once again reveals that Reyes is himself guilty of taking her statements out of context in a vain attempt to gaslight the public.

The link provided in the above quote from PolitiFact is to an edited clip of the interview published on Facebook by Live 5 News on December 27, 2020, just a few weeks after the FDA issued its first emergency use authorization for a COVID‑19 vaccine. That video clip shows Birx saying:

Thank you for understanding the difference between preventing disease and preventing infection. And right now, we don’t know how great these vaccines might be at preventing infection. So you may get a low-grade infection, and you may shed virus. We know that it protects against disease and that it protects against severe disease, but what we don’t know is if it protects against infection, and we’ll be able to really understand that over the next few weeks and months.

So, it is true that Birx did admit in December 2020 that scientists didn’t know whether the vaccines would prevent transmission. However, it is also obvious from how she thanked her host that this admission was prompted by her interviewer.

PolitiFact additionally links to the primary source, which is an article from the Washington news bureau Gray DC. That article contains another clip from earlier in the same interview that happens to falsify PolitiFact’s argument that Birx never claimed that COVID‑19 vaccines would prevent transmission.

In the earlier clip, Birx in fact claimed that the vaccines would confer “herd immunity”, which is the logical equivalent of claiming that the vaccines would prevent transmission since herd immunity is literally defined as a situation in which most people exposed to the virus do not become infected and therefore do not spread the virus to others.

A vaccine that fails to prevent transmission logically cannot confer community or “herd” immunity.

The very source PolitiFact cites as evidence of Birx’s honesty actually reveals how she got caught lying to the public and only admitting the truth after being pressed about her false claim that herd immunity would soon be achieved through mass vaccination

After explaining in the interview that vaccines were being distributing first to those at highest risk, she said that in time everyone would get their turn, “and then we can work on herd immunity through the spring and summer.”

Thus, Birx implicitly claimed during the interview that the COVID‑19 vaccines would be effective for preventing transmission.

The primary source unfortunately does not provide the full unedited interview, so we do not know what the interviewer said to Birx in between, but it is apparent that she was challenged about her claim by the interviewer, who evidently noted that protection against disease did not necessarily also mean protection against infection.

Perhaps the interviewer knew, as Birx did, that the clinical trials were not designed to determine whether the COVID‑19 vaccines would prevent viral transmission, hospitalization, or death. Rather, the measured outcome was one or more symptoms of COVID‑19 plus a positive PCR test.

Whatever the case may be, it is apparent that her host pressed Birx further on her claim that the vaccines would confer “herd immunity”, and that it was only in response to being challenged about that false claim that she admitted that they didn’t actually know whether the vaccines would prevent transmission.

Thus, the very source PolitiFact cites as evidence of Birx’s honesty actually reveals how she got caught lying to the public and only admitting the truth after being pressed about her false claim that herd immunity would soon be achieved through mass vaccination.

In other words, contrary to PolitiFact’s claim that Birx had always been consistent in acknowledging the inability of the vaccines to prevent transmission, the primary source proves that she rather claimed that they would—even though, as she now admits, she knew that there was an absence of data to support that claim.

Birx lied, and now PolitiFact is lying in a vain effort to cover it up.

PolitiFact’s “Fact Check” Is Debunked by Yet Another of Its Own Sources

PolitiFact highlights that Birx’s recent statement on Fox News was not the only time she admitted having known that the vaccines would not prevent transmission. She admitted during an interview with CBS on May 1, 2022, that “your protection against infection wanes” following vaccination, and in her book Silent Invasion, published in April, she “also acknowledged the power of ‘silent transmission by fully vaccinated,’ infected people.”

“Such remarks did not deviate from Birx’s previous messaging on the subject”, PolitiFact maintains. Yet, we have already seen how the first source Reyes cites to support that assertion fails to do so, and how that claim is falsified by the second source cited.

A third source referenced by PolitiFact also belies the purpose for which Reyes cites it. As the faux “fact check” article continues:

The Facebook post pointed to an earlier comment from Birx hailing the efficacy of the vaccine to suggest she changed her mind:

“I understand the depth of the efficacy of this vaccine,” Birx said Dec. 16, 2020. “This is one of the most highly effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal.”

But the vaccine is effective, even if it doesn’t provide full immunity from the virus. People who have been vaccinated possess varying degrees of immunity. Antibodies from the vaccine can prevent severe disease, though it doesn’t always prevent reinfection.

Reyes thus falls back on his disingenuous strawman argument to support his characterization of Birx as having been historically consistent in her statements about vaccine effectiveness, including during that December 16 interview.

However, the argument presented in the Facebook post was not that Birx had claimed that the vaccines would provide “full immunity”. Again, it is not a question of whether she made a claim of 100 percent effectiveness but whether she simply claimed that the vaccines would be effective at preventing transmission. Regardless of what he means by his use of the unscientific phrase, Reyes’ observation that she didn’t describe the vaccine as providing “full” or “complete” immunity is irrelevant.

Reyes also fails to acknowledge that by describing COVID‑19 vaccines as among “the most highly effective” of all vaccines, she was implicitly communicating the message that they would prevent transmission. After all, when people think of the most highly effective vaccines in use today, one of the first vaccines that is likely to come to mind is the measles vaccine, which is highly effective at preventing infection and transmission of the measles virus.

Furthermore, the primary source once again falsifies PolitiFact’s counterargument that Birx’s comments on December 16, 2020, were consistent with her recent admission that she knew that the vaccines would not prevent transmission.

The link provided is to an ABC News article based on an interview with Birx, during which she explained that she was waiting for her turn to get vaccinated and didn’t want to “jump the line” while the government was trying to prioritize distribution to higher-risk individuals.

The ABC News article continues by quoting Birx on the effectiveness of the COVID‑19 vaccines (emphasis added):

“I understand how this vaccine was made. I understand the safety of the vaccine. And critically, I understand the depth of the efficacy of this vaccine. This is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal. And so that’s why I’m very enthusiastic about the vaccine,” she added.

Birx says she estimates life will start to return to normal once the most vulnerable Americans receive the vaccine and it becomes available to other members of the population.

“I want to make it clear there’s two very important sides to that equation. There is herd immunity, which would prevent community spread, and then there’s absolute clarity on what people need, in an equity way, to prevent severe disease, hospitalizations and fatalities,” she said.

Birx said that by prioritizing essential workers and those in long-term care facilities, the most vulnerable Americans can be fully vaccinated by the beginning of March, at which point the country can begin moving toward herd immunity.

Thus, what Birx actually claimed during that interview was once again that the COVID‑19 vaccines would “prevent community spread” and thereby achieve “herd immunity”.

PolitiFact lies by omission by willfully withholding that fact from its readers.

Reyes instead goes on to repeat his strawman argument by concluding, “PolitiFact found no record of Birx stating the vaccine could provide complete protection against infection.”

It once again doesn’t matter what Reyes means by his unscientific use of the adjective “complete”. What matters is how Reyes notably does not claim to have found no record of Birx claiming that the vaccine would prevent community spread and thereby confer “herd immunity”, which is a scientific term with a defined meaning.

“This is one of the most highly-effective vaccines we have in our infectious disease arsenal…. There is herd immunity, which would prevent community spread….”

Assuming Reyes actually reviewed his source materials prior to citing them, Reyes must know that Birx did make that claim. Consequently, further assuming he understands what “herd immunity” means, Reyes must also know that he is making a false claim when he says that Birx’s statements about the vaccines have always been consistent.

The conclusion that Reyes is a willful liar seems inescapable, although we must acknowledge the theoretic possibility that Reyes’ deception was not intentional. Perhaps he really didn’t review his own sources before citing them. Or perhaps he did review his source materials but just didn’t understand Birx when she tried to explain to him that for the COVID‑19 vaccines to achieve “herd immunity” meant that they would “prevent community spread”.

Instructively, by refusing to acknowledge Birx’s repeated claim about the vaccines inducing herd immunity, Reyes relieves himself of having to reconcile those early statements with Birx’s more recent admission that she knew that the vaccines would not prevent transmission.

Hence the utility of his strawman.

PolitiFact’s False Pretense of Doing Journalism

Immediately after that repetition of his strawman fallacy, Reyes adds, “During the initial vaccine rollout, Birx said it was unclear the level of immunity that the vaccine provided.”

However, this is misleading because, while it is true that in at least one early instance she admitted not knowing whether the vaccines would prevent transmission, she only made that admission after being pressed about her claim that the vaccines would achieve herd immunity.

PolitiFact’s claim that the historical record shows Birx being consistently honest with the American people is falsifiable and indeed falsified by PolitiFacts’ own cited sources. Contrary to the purpose for which PolitiFact cites them, those sources indeed prove that Birx willfully lied to the public by claiming that the vaccines would stop people from spreading the virus.

Despite knowing that the clinical trials were not designed to determine vaccine effectiveness against infection and transmission, Birx proclaimed that if 70 percent to 80 percent of Americans got vaccinated, the US could “truly achieve herd immunity”.

As another illustration of just how laughably fraudulent Reyes’ “fact check” is, on July 23, 2022, Birx admitted in testimony before Congress that “public health” officials had propagated the false claim that COVID‑19 vaccines would be highly effective at preventing viral transmission.

“When the government told us that the vaccinated couldn’t transmit it, was that a lie, or was that a guess?” Ohio Representative Jim Jordan asked Birx.

Instructively, Birx made no attempt to deny the fact that the vaccines were sold to the public as being highly effective for preventing infection and transmission. Instead, she candidly answered by confessing that such early false claims from government officials were faith-based, not evidence-based:

I think it was hope that the vaccines would work in that way. . . . I think they were hoping, but you should know in those original phase three trials that were done in this country, that we only measured for symptomatic disease, so we weren’t proactively testing everybody in those trials to see if they got infected with mild or asymptomatic disease, so people had to present [with symptoms] within the clinical trials. So, we never had the data that it was going to protect against asymptomatic infection.

Of course, as we have already seen, Birx was among those who had knowingly spread the false claim during the initial rollout that the vaccines would be highly effective at preventing transmission.

What Birx was consistent about in her public messaging at the time was that the vaccines were the key to ending the pandemic and enabling life to get back to normal by stopping transmission.

To cite another instance, during an interview on December 15, 2020, despite knowing that the clinical trials were not designed to determine vaccine effectiveness against infection and transmission, Birx proclaimed that if 70 percent to 80 percent of Americans got vaccinated, the US could “truly achieve herd immunity”.

As yet another illustration, during an interview on December 17, 2020, Birx argued that lockdown measures needed to remain in place “while we get our population immunized”. The vaccines were a “great beacon of hope”, she said, and once everybody was vaccinated by the middle of summer 2021, people could get back to having parties together without fear of spreading the virus.

On December 17, 2020, Birx argued that the vaccines were a “great beacon of hope”, and once everybody was vaccinated by the middle of summer 2021, people could get back to having parties together without fear of spreading the virus.

In the paragraph of PolitiFact’s article referring to Birx’s book and acknowledgment of “silent transmission by fully vaccinated” people, the link is to a podcast interview with Birx from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

While PolitiFact maintains that her remarks during that interview “did not deviate from Birx’s previous messaging on the subject”, that is also demonstrably false.

The podcast description states that, during the interview, Birx “details the repeated failures” of government officials “to acknowledge the power of silent transmission by fully vaccinated, asymptomatic infected individuals.”

The host of the interview at one point asked Birx about the “unwillingness” of government officials “until very late to admit waning immunity, and the power of waning immunity, and the fact that there was silent transmission by people who were fully vaccinated, who were asymptomatic but becoming infected and becoming major drivers” of community transmission. This, the host continued, “defied our basic understanding of what was going on, where people felt that vaccinations were going to give protections that they didn’t give”.

Of course, the reason so many people were under that delusion is precisely because that was what they were repeatedly told by virtually the entire “public health” establishment, which is the key truth here that PolitiFact is vainly attempting to obfuscate.

Birx responded by saying that the surge of COVID‑19 that occurred in the summer of 2021 “was the most deadly summer surge that we had experienced”; and “the reason it was worse” than the summer of 2020, she explained, “is because everybody let down their guard believing that they had become invincible, invincible for both disease and infection.”

Of course, the reason so many people were under that delusion is precisely because that was what they were repeatedly told by virtually the entire “public health” establishment, which is the key truth here that PolitiFact is vainly attempting to obfuscate.

Birx went on to claim that, once it became obvious from the data that the vaccines were failing to prevent transmission, she tried desperately to get that truth out to the public. It was important, she said, for Americans to know the truth. It was important, she added, for Americans to be able to trust the information that they receive from “public health” officials.

Naturally, however, Birx declined to mention that she was among those same “public health” authorities who caused fully vaccinated people to feel “invincible” by having told people that once they were vaccinated they would not spread the virus and so could resume normal life by mid-summer 2021.

And, naturally, PolitiFact declines to mention how Birx had been among those government officials recklessly spreading disinformation that by her own account resulted in that deadly summer surge.

Reyes concludes his PolitiFact article by rating the claim that Birx “changed her tune” as “False”. But it is true. It is incontrovertible that she did change her tune. Her complete reversal of message is right there in the documentary record for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear—including two of PolitiFact’s own cited sources.

It is ridiculous to argue that Birx’s early claims that the vaccines would be the key to ending the pandemic by stopping transmission and thereby achieving herd immunity are consistent with her more recent admission that she knew that they would not.

Those early false claims from Birx about vaccine effectiveness are totally irreconcilable with that admission, which explains why PolitiFact’s absurd “fact check” article attempts to wipe those statements from the historical record, pretending as though they do not exist despite the truth being right there in its own sources.

In conclusion, PolitiFact’s preposterous hoax is just another illustration of how the mainstream media’s “fact check” industry serves to censor truth while defending and enabling propagation of dangerous official disinformation. With this laughably vain effort, Reyes has likewise proven himself a crude political propagandist, unworthy of the job description “journalist”.

Afterword

The fact that PolitiFact published Reyes’ disgraceful hoax also falsifies the claim, appearing in a banner at the top of the page at the time of this writing, that PolitiFact’s “only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy.”

“We need your help”, the donation-eliciting banner at the top of the page states.

You could donate to PolitiFact and therefore support the Poynter Institute’s efforts to censor facts and disinform participants in democracy. Or, if you think I’ve shown the shamelessly hypocritical legacy media a good example of how fact-checking is done, you could donate to support my work.

Rate This Content:

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

What do you think?

I encourage you to share your thoughts! Please respect the rules.

  • Maximilian Forte says:

    Excellent work, Jeremy, and I am very happy to see you continuing in your active publishing. I was reading your great work on foreign policy issues over a decade ago, and I am grateful to see you combatting the propaganda of the Health Security State. Many thanks.

  • >
    Share via
    Copy link