Bloomberg published an article that is full of errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations, large and small. These errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations all tend in the same direction – they all seem geared to make Jennifer look bad.
It’s not clear whether the timing is coincidental or the last gasp of an old guard targeting so-called Team Reality before a new owner or courts force it to change direction. Twitter has ignored the vast majority of Just the News requests to explain how various sanctioned users violated its terms.
What’s stopping us in general, and public health authorities in particular, from finally putting an end to exhausting pandemic hysteria and reassuring everyone that we can move on? Who benefits from never-ending Covid?
It’s exhausting and demoralizing to see glimmers of hope, like Fauci’s initial announcement, get muddied, misinterpreted and turned upside down, through more obfuscation and spin, like so much of the news and public health messaging since the pandemic began.
All the media/activists who are so infuriated by this can’t seem to specify how exactly they foresee their Twitter user experience being changed under Musk’s ownership. Presumably, they’ll still be able to follow or not follow whomever they choose, block and mute at will, etc. So what’s the problem? Well, the problem should be obvious, and almost doesn’t even need articulating: they will no longer be able to coerce Twitter’s management to accede to their demands.
Because of the gruesome spectacle in Shanghai, many who once supported lockdowns have gone silent. Indeed, these scenes are the logical conclusion of the Zero Covid cause, and serve as a grim reminder of the dystopia that could have been our own had they gotten their way.
Elon Musk’s exciting and dramatic move represents a bold attempt to overthrow the regime of control, propaganda, and enforced opinion as manufactured by the administrative state. It could be a sign of things to come. The upheaval of our times will eventually touch every institution based on the widespread perception that something has gone very wrong and cries out for a fix.
The public typically relies on an endorsement from government agencies to help them decide whether or not a new drug, vaccine, or medical device is safe and effective. And those agencies, like the FDA, count on clinical research. As already established, big pharma is notorious for getting its hooks into influential government officials. Here’s another sobering truth: The majority of scientific research is paid for by the pharmaceutical companies.
Musk’s taking some control of Twitter is a bright spot. It gives the world a brilliant example of something we’ve not seen for a very long time. It reveals how great wealth can be used to challenge power to stop doing evil. It’s just a beginning.
Maybe the reporters and editors at the Times believe they’re advancing the cause of public health by stoking panic, even long after it is justified by the level of the threat (if it ever was justified in the first place). Or maybe, to be a bit more cynical (or realistic?) about it, the reporters and editors know that fear and panic draw readers, especially around Covid, so they just can’t let go.
Adam Creighton is economics editor at The Australian, and a served as a leading voice for two years raising troubling questions about lockdown policies in his native Australia. This interview explores his experiences over two years as an often lone voice.
Now that the population has gotten used to one form of mobilization and a sizable fraction has found it enjoys the opportunities that mobilization opens up for bullying, new mobilizations for new excuses will be harder to resist.
BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE
2028 E BEN WHITE BLVD
#240-3088
AUSTIN, TX 78741
AND
BRANFORD, CT 06405
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone article