Mainstream Media Retreating Gradually from Original Stance
In the whirlwind of information surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, independent journalists find themselves in a precarious position. Acknowledging certain facts may conflict with personal beliefs, external pressures, or the harsh realities of political and social circumstances, leading some to choose what is false over the truth. This complex state is explored by independent sources examining the psychological and social dynamics journalists face, including the influence of political pressure, societal apathy, and legal risks affecting their reporting and personal convictions.
One such journalist, who chooses to remain anonymous, questions the lethality of COVID-19 and the government and media's repeated claims that the vaccines are "safe and effective." The author argues that the jab pushers have used statistical sleights-of-hand, such as "healthy vaccinee bias" and delaying the counting of vaccinated individuals until 42 days after their first shot.
The author's criticism extends to prominent figures in the media, such as David Leonhardt, a writer for the New York Times. Leonhardt, who went on a 1,600-mile road trip to get vaccinated as early as he could, has belatedly and incrementally changed his views on COVID-19 policies, such as keeping schoolkids home and the correlation between Covid deaths and old age. However, Leonhardt expresses discomfort about the possibility that some injuries may have resulted from the COVID-19 vaccines.
The author's personal observations in COVID-19 ground zero, where he has not directly known anyone who has died from the virus, do not align with the New York Times' persistent, apocalyptic COVID-19 narrative and pro-vaccine message. The media's portrayal of the vaccines as a panacea is further challenged by the author's direct knowledge of six people who have had significant health setbacks shortly after getting vaccinated, including one death.
The author suggests that less medical intervention, including the shots, often does more harm than good. This sentiment is echoed by Mark Oshinskie, a lawyer who began his career handling one-day trials. Oshinskie's senior colleague, Ben, advised him to treat every adverse witness as someone who starts with a handful of credibility chips.
As the public's decline in vaccine uptake continues, the media and bureaucrats are slowly adopting the views of those who criticized the COVID-19 overreaction. However, they continue to hold onto the central narrative that COVID-19 was a terrible disease that indiscriminately killed millions. The author argues that the shots have caused a net loss in life span when considering all causes of death and did not save any lives or keep him or his non-vaccinated acquaintances out of the hospital.
The author also points out that the media ignore vaxx injuries and deaths from heart attacks, strokes, or cancers and the excess death increases in highly vaccinated nations in 2021-22. This failure to acknowledge vaxx injuries and deaths reveals a lack of intelligence or a willful disregard of plainly observable information.
Some commenters on articles about vaccine injuries describe non-lethal injuries they sustained shortly after getting vaccinated, but both articles and many commenters emphasize that correlation is not causation. The New York Times readers, a skewed, pro-vaccine sample, often argue that even if the shots caused injuries, they were a net positive in a world facing a universally vicious killer.
As the debate continues, it is clear that the COVID-19 pandemic and the response to it have raised complex and contentious issues, challenging journalists, policymakers, and the public to critically evaluate the information they receive and make informed decisions based on facts, not fear.
