10 Comments

The GBD was as a focus point to control the opposition to the measures. It maintained the lies of the pandemic but seemed to be in opposition to some of its measures. Interesting that until 2020 Sunetra Gupta was married to Adrien Hill- Saint Sarah Gilbert's parnter in crime at Vaccitech, set to make 20 million out of the AZ jab- if it hadn't bombed.

The whole premise of the pandemic was a set up - the banning of GOF lab leak theory, then its acceptance, the promotion and then criticism of the GBD, the banning of pharma product IVM which ended up making it a smash hit, the talk about T cells and antibodies and 'natural immunity'.

Trust the evidence of your own eyes. Ill health is not caused by invisible viruses. It's caused by loneliness, obesity, anxiety, pollution, remdesiver and midazolam. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing

Expand full comment

Thanks Jonathan I think you are a very good writer and thinker and i am very grateful for your efforts, as I support most of what you say. I do think sometimes you might over homogenise the 'corporate mass media' as they are not a uniform entity but contain many variations, which is perhaps making a similar point to Jerry's below. But thank you again, keep up the good work, I have donated! Andy P, West Devon

Expand full comment

Many thanks, Andy. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "homogenise". From one perspective, CNN and Fox aren't the same, any more than the Republicans and Democrats are the same. But on the essentials, you're being offered the same pap, in two different flavours. In fact, the system needs to accentuate those superficial differences to stop you demanding a substantive difference.

Expand full comment

I'm sorry, hadn't seen before I posted my comment below. The whole kit and caboodle of 'corporate media'? Every voice, every talking heads' point, every article? None of them, none of them, can be assumed to care about the public good? That's the problem. If we just knew the right 'non-corporate, independent, informed expert' to listen to, than all would be well?

The rhetorical formulation absolutely matches those of my right-wing brother, who insists that all journalists--on msm, at least--other than the ones he happens to agree with--that all journalists are dishonest. Or that absolutely every politician is simply in it for him or herself, without any true regard for doing 'good' for the world. I don't disagree (again) with the dilemma embodied in our reality--the capitalistic frame of the media--but I distrust such blanket statements.

Expand full comment

Haven't you switched frames? I'm talking about corporate media. You're talking about journalists. I'm talking about power structures. You're talking about individuals. Obviously individuals within the structures can mean well and even do good. The structures themselves are entirely indifferent to good or bad, except when good can can be monetised. You may 'distrust' that approach, but the imminent arrival of a point of no return on extinction for our species suggests you may well be wrong.

Expand full comment

Jonathan, I don't really disagree. We're being forced to be our own medical 'experts,' because we hear of arguments being made, or suppressed, via various media. And then we have to try to factor in all the political and commercial factors, and decide what makes sense...without having control, ultimately, obviously, of the decrees or mandates that are issued to us.

I was just trying to make the point that there is a distinction to be held onto, between this inescapable 'frame' of commercial and political interests, and each individual perspective, as it is published, by this or that scientist or public health expert. We have to form our own perspective, but--especially with the truth of what you are saying in our minds, we should hold our beliefs rather gently and tentatively. I think we are essentially on the same page though.

Expand full comment

Good article. Important points.

Expand full comment

The virus has 'evolved,' mutated over time; medical/public health responses, to be valid and appropriate, also need to evolve. Context and timing therefore matter, when assessing medical, or scientific (or even political) opinions about what to do. When lockdowns were the liberal consensus 'thing to do,' people were dying in enormous numbers. Now, with omicron, the prospect--even for unvaccinated people--seems much less serious. The Great Barrington intervention of (as pointed out) over a year ago--might indeed have proven a disastrous choice of 'strategies' at the time. But locking things down now doesn't have such a strong case. Hence (can't we argue this?), the press and the scientific community will be singing a slightly different tune...Or having different debates.

I find it interesting--a little distressing though--that in an article preaching about critical thinking, the author's premise that The Guardian (and by extension) all liberal press and media in general--are simply out there to maximize profits. To manipulate. Well, I would never deny the general premise, but it doesn't follow that publishing the 'anti-lockdown' piece now is merely a piece of hypocrisy.

Distinctions and nuance must be insisted upon, even when analyzing the media, right? And so every published piece in The Guardian or The New York Times is not simply being manufactured for the basest of motives. Aren't most of us, in fact, trying our best to grasp, to understand, what is a very complex, unprecedented phenomenon? But of course (and this is the hard part) that doesn't mean that anyone can be totally certain of what is the best public response. Let's keep reacting, and debating, and changing course, if necessary. Too much is at stake to just occupy some high moral ground and castigate or demonize those who disagree. Which is, I believe, the underlying (or overarching) point of Jonathan's piece.

Expand full comment

The piece is arguing that this "evolution", if it really is that, is being done dishonestly. That there is no real public conversational allowed, even among the experts. There are a series of Fauci-like decrees that exclude, or character-assassinate, those experts that are making politically or commercially inconvenient arguments. Don't you need to address this point?

Expand full comment

Absolutely, no discussion even among 'experts' was allowed. There was never any evidence for any of the measures- no one was ever in danger -it was all hype using the power of social media. https://jowaller.substack.com/p/xi-and-li-and-the-great-hoax?utm_source=publication-search

Expand full comment