Thank you, thank you, thank you for your support this weekend

I have said for a while that Unreported Truths is more than journalism, it's a community. At a very intense moment, you've shown me exactly what that means. I can't thank you enough.

I wish I could sugarcoat this. (Though not really, that’s not why you’re here.)

On Friday, the Justice Department told federal Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke it doesn’t want to extend the stay in Berenson v Biden further and she should dismiss the case — even though it no longer argues I do not have a “plausible First Amendment claim.”

I’ll explain more soon, but this opens the way for Judge Clarke to toss the whole case. I am gobsmacked. Since 2022, I’ve built a long record of how the Biden administration violated my First Amendment rights in 2021, and the rights of all Covid unvaccinated people to hear me. Now the Trump administration is basically saying it doesn’t care about either - and standing with Pfizer, just days after forcing out Dr. Vinay Prasad.

Pharma had itself a week.

—

(Win or lose, I’ll always fight for the truth.)

—

This hurts.

Not just legally. I cheered the administration’s first-day executive order criticizing Biden’s censorship efforts. I believed Donald J. Trump wanted to defend free speech. Instead his administration has sided with Biden and the same federal court in New York that made his life so difficult. I’d like to believe he just doesn’t know about the suit, but I have done everything possible to try to tell him.

Then, of course, came the nonsense with Dave Smith.

I can think of more fun ways to spend a Friday.

But there was a silver lining.

You.

—

(I still believe in it. I believe in it more than ever.)

—

Obviously, Smith and I were on the same side on Covid, and I knew some readers wouldn’t like my criticizing him.

Just because I’ve committed to trying to give you the truth as best I can even if it is at odds with your political stance doesn’t mean I like getting sideways with readers. If you ALL stopped subscribing, I’d have to find something else to do — something that would probably be less interesting and give me less time with my kids.

But you stood by me this weekend. Yes, a few of you canceled over the weekend (mostly unpaid readers, with some paid). But a bunch of you signed up too!

All day Saturday, you told me you were glad to see my follow-up promise to get back to (medical) business. Mostly, you told me you liked that I stand up for what I think is right and true, even when the odds are long.

Those emails and comments were better than any therapy could be. I could quote from them, but you can read them yourself, and I’d rather not quote you telling me how great I am. Instead, let me offer this short email exchange with a reader who decided he would NOT subscribe anymore:

—

READER: I really appreciated you during Covid. It’s been very disappointing to watch you fall into trust the experts mode. I understand it’s (the holocaust and antisemitism) a heated issue and deeply personal, but it’s the complete opposite of what I expect out of journalism and I’m not supporting someone trying to narrow the scope of what can be said, explored, or thought without significantly more meat than what you’ve been coming with.

—

ME: Appreciate the note. I’d just say that questioning experts doesn’t mean always rejecting them. When I was questioning the mRNAs in 2021 I drew heavily on data from the health authorities in places like Australia and Denmark and Japan. When I want to learn about the Black Hawk crash I go to the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board]. Rejecting all authoritative sources makes no more sense than accepting them all. I trust myself to be able to tell good from bad.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words, I’m sorry to see you go, and I’ll be here if you decide to come back!

—

READER: First. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Second… I’d agree with that initial point. I’m not suggesting there’s no such thing as expertise or that expertise only refers to its opposite. My issue is that ‘expertise’ on literally everything that happened in a given period and on it’s implications for the future are up for grabs (within certain bounds—the definition of these bounds is likely where we differ) and I see the effort to define that expertise as much by who cannot wield it as who can as the simplifying of the historical mind and authority by gag order.

As with Covid I think we’re all much better served by exposing where the erring party is wrong rather than trying to shut them up with pariah terminology.

—

So, look, on this issue we must agree to disagree. And this reader felt strongly enough that he doesn’t want to support me anymore.

That’s his prerogative. But this, to me, is the Unreported Truths way — honest, thoughtful discussion on both sides. Sometimes there is no easy answer. But trying to shout or curse people down, or censor their arguments, because you don’t like what they say, is always a sign of weakness and not strength.

I believe that in my core, and I always will.

It is beyond heartening to know that you do too.

Thank you.

—

(And if you are not a subscriber, make up for that cancellation!)

—

Onward.