We were right about pretty much everything
This article first appeared on Raphael Lataster’s Substack, Okay Then News.
It is still not well known that nearly a year ago the US government, when the Biden regime was still in power, and before RFK Jr was HHS Secretary, put out a report that vindicated nearly every thought we ‘COVID skeptics’ had about the pandemic. After successfully getting a publication with Peter Parry in Springer Nature’s Cureus journal on the need to entertain contrarian ideas, which did mention the report as an example, I teamed up with now ACIP Co-Chair Robert Malone to produce a spiritual sequel in another medical journal focussed solely on this vitally important report. Source. Highlights:
- The final report of the bipartisan United States House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic vindicated many contrarian hypotheses and opinions from those of us who were “pilloried, censured, censored, systematically demeaned, and even fired during the time of the pandemic (including this article’s authors)”.
- The report acknowledged that the lockdowns, school closures, face mask mandates, and vaccine mandates all didn’t help, and probably did more harm than good; the worth of the jabs was very much exaggerated; corruption was involved; and the virus probably leaked from a Chinese lab. You know, little things… There’s a lot more, so I suggest you read the full list in our article, and the report. Another was the “coordinated effort to ignore natural immunity”.
- The report gives us clear and plentiful evidence of ‘reverse misinformation’, my term for “correct information mislabelled as misinformation, especially by authorities”.
- There is also much the report did not discuss, like how “the US government, whilst demonising those who asked rational questions around COVID-19 vaccines, carried out a deceitful and hypocritical “anti-vax propaganda effort” throughout Asia to discourage COVID-19 vaccination with the SinopharmCOVID-19 vaccine”. And how “the CDC quietly altered its website after it became known that their claims about the vaccines and their products staying at the injection sites, for only a few days, and doing no harm, were false (now known via internet archives)”.
- Despite the concessions made about the COVID-19 vaccine mandates and even the vaccines themselves, the report still concluded that they were successful and “helped save millions of lives”. However, “only a handful of the several thousand references were cited in support of Operation Warp Speed in the full report”. The most high-profile being the famous Watson et al, which was ‘torn to shreds’ by yours truly, and also effectively debunked by Ioannidis. As for the other 2 references, I’ve debunked those as well. Just waiting on publishing. And one of them is a blog post…
- We note that since submission several developments provide further vindication, such as the US health authorities’ changed attitude towards vaccinating healthy children; and the Australian ATAGI debacle, where the health authorities apparently figured out that the risks of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the benefits in healthy children, using data that is several years old. I smell a lawsuit, or 50 (thousand).
- The reporting on this report in the mainstream news has been dreadful. Where it was mentioned at all, it was generally dismissed as a report by Republicans. The truth is that the report is bipartisan, with video footage revealing that the report passed unanimously. The reporting in the journals has likewise been terrible, with the BMJ’s attempt aging particularly poorly, as I pointed out in a rapid response.
- More left-leaning people are starting to recognise these truths as well.
- We then explain why this spiritual sequel did not appear in Cureus. The “submission caused debate amongst the editorial team, who promptly rejected it”. They even accused of us bias, and would not consider a more toned-down version, despite apparently endorsing our position given that they published the earlier article. One empathetic editor was very disappointed in his colleagues and disclosed to us that “the involvement of Malone was already potentially enough to have the submission rejected”.
- We end with: “How can we ‘trust the science’ when this is now the state of modern science? We are grateful that the editors of the Journal of Independent Medicine are more willing to allow researchers to follow the evidence, wherever itleads.”
Okay then.
