One of the consistent mercies of the SARS-CoV-2 “covid-19 pandemic,” even at its most virulent initial stages, has been the paucity of serious disease in children generally, and healthy children, universally. Covid-19 always was and remains a very highly age- and comorbid risk-stratified disease that targets the extremely frail elderly—especially those in congregate care—and the otherwise middle-aged to elderly with multiple (for example, ≥ 6!), severe, chronic comorbidities.
It’s all quite brazen and absurd. It’s especially rotten that the FDA seems to be placing the blame for a decade and a half of stuffy noses on the manufacturers of cold products – even though it was the government itself that forced them to use inferior ingredients in the first place.
The Fifth Circuit failed to acknowledge the critical role the intelligence community played in the Covid response and the assault on the Bill of Rights. By reinstating agencies’ power to partner with groups designed to circumvent the First Amendment, the Court risks the continued erosion of First Amendment freedoms under public-private totalitarianism.
As a journalist, I cannot say much more than the best available facts suggest, but as has been clear for far too long, the mRNA vaccines were not beneficial and safe on a population-level for young, healthy men — yet the CDC and FDA didn’t care. Hopefully, “pro-vaccine publication[s]” may recognize the harm they helped perpetuate.
This governor’s regulation puts the power at the highest levels of the state government – centrally controlled. The governor’s regulation not only circumvents the legislature’s power and responsibility to enact appropriate laws for the citizenry, but it also takes that power beyond the local level, where it can most appropriately be considered, and completely fails to protect the rights of the individuals against misuse or mis-application by the state officials.
During what government deems crisis, it’s those most willing and eager to flout convention and expert opinion who produce crucial information for the rest of us. If living freely results in sickness and death, then we all know what not to do. But if as was the case with the coronavirus that living freely wasn’t much of a risk at all except for the already very old and already very sick, then those who didn’t flout convention and expert opinion have the information necessary to alter their lifestyles with the information created by the rebellious.
Bottom line—there’s not going to be a fungal apocalypse. I say this as a fungal immunologist that would certainly benefit from making the case for a fungal apocalypse, but I think we’ve had enough fearmongering the last few years for many lifetimes, and fearmongering ultimately further erodes public trust in scientists and public health “experts.”
Friday’s decision provides a crucial step in fighting against that informational totalitarianism. The Fifth Circuit issued an injunction that prohibits the Biden Administration from taking actions, “to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”
The only hope is that this ugly, complicated and regressive piece of legislation ends up before a judge who understands that freedom of expression means nothing if held hostage to the views of the European Commission on pandemic-preparedness, the Russia-Ukraine war, or what counts as “offensive” or “hateful” speech.
Every American is a sovereign individual with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not a sack of meat to be treated as a profit opportunity. Informed consent must be revived from the grave if Americans are to have a fighting chance against powerful financial interests allied against them.
For “fact-checking” to have any legitimacy whatsoever, it needs to ditch rating the crazies. It also should start each week with releasing a list of 20 items, check each of those, and then write about all of them, true or false. At the very least, the public would know the fact-checkers aren’t hiding facts they don’t like.