Reflections on the COVID Twitter files so far
Here’s the Twitter thread itself.
I don’t really need to reinvent the wheel and do a blow-by-blow analysis. I’ll just link to this, this, and this.
From the latter:
In its pathetic attempt to meet the Biden administration’s demands while meekly attempting to protect free speech on the platform, Twitter made three significant mistakes: 1) Using bots, 2) Relying on foreign contractors as content moderators, and 3) Allowing biased executives to prune the decision trees to determine the fate of specific tweets.
This meant many essential voices in the covid debate, which turned out to be correct, were silenced at critical times.
Thing is, it was obvious that this was happening. Anyone who looked could see it. I’m not a Twitter user, but there was plenty of discussion on the right side of the blogosphere and in other media on the right of how alternative points of view were being silenced.
I think the only really new evidence in this first batch of Twitter files on COVID is the extent of government involvement in the censorship, but even that could have been assumed. Early on, the government point of view became the only allowed point of view. I noticed it mostly on YouTube because I vist that site far more than I go to Twitter, and huge disclaimers appeared there attached to any video that even dared to tentatively whisper a thought contradicting the official government line, plus YouTube was “suggesting” tons of videos to me that parroted that government line and only that government line.
And yet the problems with the government line were also obvious from the start. It was easy to see, and I wrote about it early on. For example, here’s a post of mine from March 17, 2020, not long after the entire COVID business began. In it, I ask a question that would later have gotten me banned from Twitter had I been active there:
So here’s my question for all you epidemiologists and infectious disease experts out there…
Wouldn’t it be better to have only high-risk people stay home? People over 60 and those with pre-existing conditions? That way, if all those at low risk kept mingling, a lot of them would get a mild flu and herd immunity will be achieved fairly quickly, to the benefit of all, without overwhelming the health care system…
I just don’t see the end game for the current mitigation strategies. Wouldn’t we still get an overwhelmed health care system when everyone emerges?…
I was looking at a spate of recent articles on how Philadelphia and St. Louis handled the flu differently in 1918, with Philadelphia holding a big war bond parade despite the fact that the flu was beginning to make inroads in the city, and St. Louis canceling public gatherings (see this for just one example). The Philadelphia death rate soared and that of St. Louis did not.
However, most of the articles don’t mention this depressing fact:
“According to a 2007 analysis of Spanish flu death records, the peak mortality rate in St. Louis was only one-eighth of Philadelphia’s death rate at its worst. That’s not to say that St. Louis survived the epidemic unharmed. Dehner says the midwestern city was hit particularly hard by the third wave of the Spanish flu which returned in the late winter and spring of 1919.”
So, St. Louis did flatten its curve. But the deaths stretched out longer there.
And this apparently was a common occurrence in many cities…
The lockdown continuation already didn’t make sense, and that was obvious to anyone who had crunched the original COVID numbers from the Diamond Princess (I had) and looked at history from 100 years earlier (I had). I’m not saying this to brag, I’m saying it because it was easy to see rather than difficult. The fact that the authorities didn’t seem to see it – or refused to see it, or pretended not to see it – was obvious as well, and suspect. They were either incompetent (“fools”) or deceiving us (“knaves”) or both.
Why were they doing this? Well, one reason was also obvious pretty early on. Here’s a post of mine from April 27, 2020, entitled “Fear is an opportunity for tyranny”:
One of the many lessons of the COVID-19 response is how easily public officials embrace tyranny, and how many people accept it because of fear…
I didn’t like the initial 2-week shutdown, but I thought I understood the reasons – flatten the curve and keep the health care system from being totally overwhelmed – and I knew it would buy us time to learn more about the illness.
Mission accomplished. It’s been far more than two weeks, and the damage from the shutdown itself has gotten to the point that it becomes crystal clear it needs to be removed. The benefits have been less clear, too. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that shutdowns mattered all that much in the curve of the COVID-19 toll in various states and various countries. We understand more than we did, but although we don’t understand enough, we have to take a few leaps because one thing we do understand (and was clear from the start, actually) is that the shutdown itself is causing tremendous damage. And that damage is not limited to economics; it involves mental and physical health as well.
That’s how soon it was obvious. The rest is just the details.
I’ll close this post with a description of some thoughts of Thomas Sowell’s from his very fine book The Vision of the Anointed:
Sowell argues that American thought is dominated by a “prevailing vision” which seals itself off from any empirical evidence that is inconsistent with that vision.
–the prevailing social vision is dangerously close to sealing itself off from any discordant feedback from reality.
–it is so necessary to believe in a particular vision that evidence of its incorrectness is ignored, suppressed, or discredited
–empirical evidence is neither sought beforehand nor consulted after a policy has been instituted. Facts may be marshalled for a position already taken, but that is very different from systematically testing opposing theories by evidence.
The book was written in 1996 and was the very first book of Sowell’s I ever read, probably around 2004. So these trends were already quite clear back then and even far earlier, with the Soviets. And what he describes is even more than a vision – it’s also a relentless drive for power not just to implement that vision but also for power’s sake itself.
Brilliant analysis, past and present.
Here’s a question- any reason why you aren’t a “Twitter person?”
This is a fantastic blog that I only discovered fairly recently after someone sent me a direct link to it. There is so much great stuff here, especially the offbeat pieces that are not about politics.
As you state, Neo, all of this was obvious from the beginning. Not only the response which was so wrong, but also all the censorship that was happening. Now we have real documentation. But just like Russiagate, etc etc etc, nothing at all will happen to all those who are responsible. Meanwhile the FBI continues its raids on those “domestic terrorists” who are just ordinary citizens.
Queen of the Jungle:
Thanks!
Here’s something I wrote long ago to explain my early aversion to Twitter:
That was before Twitter got heavily into the censorship business, before COVID, even before Trump was elected.
Thanks for that explanation. Have to agree with you about Twitter. I am an avid reader and writer because of my job and it always seemed like such unsatisfying, thin gruel.
Especially when there are so many brilliant authors out there for our edification and enjoyment.
“…all of this was obvious from the beginning…”
Not sure.
I guess it depends on HOW one defines “the beginning”…and WHEN it is said to have started.
One assumes—and this is where they have us by the short curlies—that the government is doing its best. Sure mistakes will be made…but most would believe that the government is NOT INTENTIONALLY trying to make things a whole lot worse. Devastatingly worse.
(Alas, at this stage of the game—and for some time now—one would be extremely foolish, or be extremely politically motivated, to believe a word that emanates from any government agency.)
For me, red flags were raised fairly early on, when the suggested use of HCQ as a treatment (seeing that it was already used successfully, and commonly, in other areas) was shot down IMMEDIATELY by all the usual suspects. That was pretty early on and that was obviously politically motivated, since Trump had suggested it (and it occurred again and again when other suggested serious, effective treatments were similarly denigrated, ridiculed, shot down.)
Then there was the increased politicization which saw Democrats, who at first pooh-poohed the severity of the disease doing a complete 180 degree reversal and then accusing Trump of not treating the disease as seriously as he should have, peppering their accusation with the usual lies and misrepresentations (even as they accused him of hysteria and racism WRT his decision to ban flights from China).
Such anti-Trump (and anti-treatment) politicization skyrocketed, with tendentious articles published in once-well-regarded journals (articles that were quietly withdrawn after the desired damage had been done).
The only reasonable conclusion is that the Democrats WANTED this social mayhem and upheaval to occur because they believed—rightly, as it turned out—that they could reap tremendous political benefit from it.
This is still happening. They WANT mayhem and upheaval to occur, in as many different areas as possible, in order to benefit from it politically—to EXPLOIT it politically…IN FACT they have decided that chaos and disaster is so beneficial to them that they have embarked on policies to increase and accelerate mayhem and upheaval….
Note: Not JUST to benefit from it politically but to provide them with a convenient rationale/excuse to exert increasing CONTROL over the population…and trash the Constitution.
(But nothing to see here, folks, just move along…and mind that if you notice anything untoward then you are treading dangerously in Deplorable and Insurrectionist—MAGA—territory…)
P.S. One sees the same thing happening in Canada.
Fauci’s Bonanza
There was one huge issue from the beginning that was obvious if you knew the tells, but very hard to see otherwise. GREED, sheer unadulterated love of money with absolutely no care about the consequences. The doctors at the NIH, CDC, etc., stood to make enormous amounts of money from the vaccines.
The NIH holds patents on many medications and distributes the royalties to the doctors on staff. This is a terrible, horrible, very bad, no good incentive for all the MDs there. They are always going to recommend an expensive drug, even if it’s is no better than aspirin. Now think of the COVID vaccines at at least $100 per patient and two hundred million patients. That comes to $20 billion with a hefty cut going to the NIH, a once in a life time bonanza.
A friend of mine, who’d worked with the CDC, told me about this in the summer of 2020 when there was all the discussion of HCQ and Ivermectin. “The CDC will never touch a drug without a patent because of the money they make.” Both of them were out of patent years ago. This was verified recently by Senator Rand Paul’s questioning Anthony Fauci on his payouts from the patent royalties. Fauci refused to answer, hiding behind some rule or law that allows him to keep the payments to him hidden.
Part two is getting the vaccines into circulation. Normally, a vaccine needs to undergo very strict testing that can last four to five years. If there are any adverse effects along the way, the testing is stopped and the vaccine can’t be sold. Extensive testing can be circumvented if an “Emergency Use Authorization” (EUS) is awarded for the vaccine because of a dire situation. Under the EUA they are also relieved of liability for adverse reactions and can’t be sued, a very nice benefit for the drug companies. But, and this is a big but, the EUA can’t be given out if there are useful therapies available on the market. Enter HCQ and Ivermectin, as toxic as aspiring, in use for years, and out of patent. If they worked as advertised by Dr. Zelenko and others, that’s the end of massive profits for the Pfizer, Modena, and all the other big pharma company vaccines. Even worse, they’re dirt cheap at aspirin level prices. And even if a vaccine is available, who’s going to get vaccinated if they can take a few of pills for a few days and be cured?
When I saw Dr. Fauci, almost scream “absolutely not” when a reporter asked him if HCQ was helpful, I was shocked at his reaction and wondered what was going on. It didn’t make sense. With my belated knowledge, I now know why. Fauci was even more dishonest in his response recommending Remdesivir instead, which is expensive and had been used during the African Ebola outbreak. The only problem is that it killed the patient with its toxic side effects, but what’s one more death among many?
The final part of this grift is keeping the rubes stirred up and afraid. It was clear from the very beginning that COVID was most dangerous to the elderly with pre-existing conditions. These are people who are very vulnerable to almost any disease and very close to the end of life. If the public figured that out, they wouldn’t be nearly as docile and fearful as they actually were, nor willing to take the vaccines.
Here’s the data provided by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health on August 10, 2020. On page 16, in the right hand plot, you’ll see that the average age of death is 82. Even below age 70, it’s not much of a danger. This has been true for the entire time of the pandemic and is true even today. I heard both Bill Gates, that font of wisdom, and the CEO of Pfizer both confirm this in the last couple of months.
So what do you do? Why you measure and publish cases using PCR, even though it’s really the average age of death that matters. That produces big, BIG, numbers that will scare people, reporters most of all since they can’t count to eleven without taking their shoes and socks off. Best of all, since the measurement was never made previously there won’t be any way to make a comparison with plain old flu cases before COVID.
Kerry Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the invention of PCR, told Fauci at the time of the AIDs scare that PCR couldn’t be used to track AIDs in the population, it wasn’t a quantitative measurement and was a misuse of the technology. At the time Fauci also tried to hype AIDs as a heterosexual disease. Nope, if you don’t go to gay orgies nightly and use drugs heavily and exchange needles, it wasn’t going to happen.
Nope, if you don’t go to gay orgies nightly and use drugs heavily and exchange needles, it wasn’t going to happen.
You’re overstating matters considerably with this sentence.
what was also striking is that back then a fairly inexpensive sulfur based antibiotic, bactrim, was effective in treating severe cases, but fauci, then in government, looked to the quixotic goal of a vaccine, which 40 years later, has not eventuated,
this was the core of larry kramer’s argument, with fauci, that was papered over in the intervening decades,
“Twitter made three significant mistakes:”
The then powers that be at Twitter made no “mistakes” it was intentional and willing compliance.
“I just don’t see the end game for the current mitigation strategies.” neo
Ascertaining the “end game” is only difficult because, for those who retain their moral compass, it’s too horrible to contemplate. They were never intended to be “mitigation strategies”. They were intended to be propagation strategies. And they succeeded beyond all expectations.
This was about power and money. So many lives lost unnecessarily, including from the secondary effects of the shutdowns. The government’s role in suppressing dissent and commentary is evil and should be criminal.
All anyone needed to know about the danger posed by Covid could be learned from the Diamond Princess. And yet it was disregarded. Why?
what was also striking is that back then a fairly inexpensive sulfur based antibiotic, bactrim, was effective in treating severe cases,
This is lunacy.
In addition to reading Neo, Iwas watching the Whitehouse briefings and also Laura Ingraham’s “medicine cabinet.” It was obvious that there was a conflict in opinions about the best way to proceed. Who to believe? I wanted to believe that Fauci and Birx were real experts, but I could tell there was tension with Trump. He kept saying that we couldn’t keep locked down, and the duo kept asking for just a bit more.
When the HQC issue arose, the doctors that were using it were all saying it had to be used before you got too ill, but Fauci, the CDC, and FDA kept citing the few trials where it was used after hospitalization where it failed to help. And yet, Dr. Steven Smith, one of Ingraham’s medicine cabinet, kept appearing on her show and detailing how he used HQC, Zn, Z-Pac to get patients well. In the meantime, the FDA trotted out some cardiac side effect from HCQ that was quite rare, but enough to allow the government to threaten pharmacies to not fill prescriptions for HQC except for Lupus.
The Trump got infected and was cured rather quickly with monoclonal antibodies. Wow, I thought the pandemic was over. There was a cure! But, no, it was as if he had never gotten sick or he had not been given any treatment. From that point on I was certain that the NIH, CDC, and FDA were not telling us the truth. MY question then and now is why? Money seems one explanation. The urge to power seems another. But how do these people sleep at night?
I knew it wasn’t as dangerous as they claimed, but if I got it, being 87and with some medical issues, I was probably not going to survive. When the vaccine became available, my wife and I got the Pfoizer shots as soon as we could. We thought we were pretty safe, and, in the summer of 2021, we traveled to see all our family in Colorado. Other than wearing masks on the planes we took no precautions. In the fall of 2021, we took the booster shots. A couple of weeks later I was seeing a doctor for water on the elbow. 🙂 He warned me to not rely on the vaccines as there were now a number of “breakthrough” cases occurring. What?? So, we went back to being very careful, then our daughter caught the Omicron virus. We expected to catch it from her because we live in the same house and breathe the same air. She recovered in five days, and we never got sick. Well, maybe it’s not as contagious as they were saying, but we had always been taking Vitamin D3, Quercetin, Melatonin, and Zn. Maybe we were resistant.
My doctor asked me if I had gotten a bivalent booster a couple of weeks ago. I told her I was watching the case rate in the county and if a new wave seemed to appear, I would get the booster. I was surprised when she said that was a decent plan.
Trust in our institutions is now broken. I don’t know what they can do to regain it, but it’s going to take a lot.
JJ you may want to take a look at the study examining IgG antibodies and the distribution between the 4 types as more booster shots are administered. There is a cause for concern. After all, at the very least, long-term data regarding mRNA therapy doesn’t yet exist.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.ade2798?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Someone’s been brainwashed.
Elon says not him.
“Sowell argues that American thought is dominated by a “prevailing vision” which seals itself off from any empirical evidence that is inconsistent with that vision.”
Arthur Koestler, himself a former Communist, wrote about the nature of intellectually closed systems:
“A closed sysem has three peculiarities. Firstly, it claims to represent a truth of universal validity, capable of explaining all phenomena, and to have a cure for all that ails man. In the second place, it is a system which cannot be refuted by evidence, because all potentially damaging data are automatically processed and reinterpreted to make them fit the expected pattern. The processing is done by sophisticated methods of causistry, centered on axioms of great emotive power, and indifferent to the rules of common logic; it is a kind of Wonderland croquet, played with mobile hoops.
In the third place, it is a system which invalidates criticism by shifting the argument to the subjective motivation of the critic, and deducing his motivation from the axioms of the system itself. The orthodox Freudian school in its early stages approximated a closed system; if you argued that for such and such reasons you doubted the existence of the so-called castration complex, the Freudian’s prompt answer was that your argument betrayed an unconscious resistance indicating that you ourself have a castration complex; you were caught in a vicious circle. Similarly, if you argued with a Stalinist that to make a pact with Hitler was not a nice thing to do he would explain that your bourgeois class-consciousness made you unable to understand the dialectics of history…
In short, the closed system excludes the possibility of objective argument by two related proceedings: (a) facts are deprived of their value as evidence by scholastic processing; (b) objections are invalidated by shifting the argument to the personal motive behind the objection. This procedure is legitimate according to the closed system’s rules of the game which, however absurd they seem to the outsider, have a great coherence and inner consistency.
The atmosphere inside the closed system is highly charged; it is an emoional hothouse…The trained, “closed-minded” theologian, psychoanalyst, or Marxist can at any time make mincemeat of his “open-minded” adversary and thus prove the superiority of his system to the world and to himself.”
Thanks, Sharon W.
Paul-
Extraordinarily good comment!