No one cares about any of this. The only thing most of us care about is whether or not Twitter colluded with the White House (or other governmental actors) to suppress political speech that the White House did not like.
So it sounds like you get 5 more strikes? Okay fine but knowing what we do about the Twitter censors, those five strikes will run out by the end of the week. What we need is some sort of combination of the 1st Amendment and tenure so that scientific debate can continue without the threat of government intervention. A system whereby we have to go to court after every strike is unworkable in practice.
Lol. I love what you do Alex, but nothing is to stop them from banning you two weeks after you are re-instated. And then you can spend another year trying to get back on the platform.
Twitter and our social media overlords are a total fucking disgrace.
I think people can decide if the email you sent to your subscribers reflects how you settled.
May 11 Email from Alex:
In a matter of weeks, Twitter is supposed to hand over ALL the documents it has about me - including its communications with the federal government. I fully expect the little bird to demand a protective order that will hide those emails and texts and Slack chats and everything else from public view.
*********My lawyers and I believe you have the right to find out what I learn, and we will argue against a protective order if Twitter asks for one. *********
I am trying to raise $200,000.
I’ve set up a GoFundMe page here.
I want Twitter to know I have an army on my side that wants the *****truth *****
You know, since (apparently) a number of subscribers donated to Alex's legal fund under the impression that it would lead to something a lot more significant than Alex being allowed back on Twitter, maybe Alex should consider something -
If any payment was made to Alex as part of the settlement - how about donating it all to a legal fund set up for all of those banned Twitter users to use so that they can sue Twitter? I doubt that many of them have substack accounts that they can use to beg for donations to their legal causes.
If those of you who donated are perfectly happy with the outcome - so be it and I'll say nothing more. And, frankly, if there was no plea for donations and the outcome was exactly the same, I would actually be celebrating all of this. And if Alex were to suddenly refund all donations, I would also congratulate him and say well done.
But to say that nothing about this passes the smell test doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
It's known that the govt. paid major media millions to promote the vaccines. You don't think they left out Twitter, FB and other social media, do you? It's not hard to figure these nuts out.
McCullough drops some really interesting facts in here - like a recent JAMA paper from Scandinavia detailing over 7000 brain hemorrhages or strokes within 28 days of the vaccine.
Yet they are still at it! Just banned Zelenko Freedom Foundation. The late great Dr. Vladimir Zelenko as many would know was forefront with alt effective protocols early in the pandemic.
You made the Epoch Times Alex! Your settlement based upon discovery is a very smart move, which will of course pave the way for many reinstatements (Lil Bird won't want an assault of lawsuits). Fingers crossed for you and stay strong!
It’s a good thing we’re all interested in different things and willing to fight for them in our own way. This means that with no planning or co-ordination many battles will be fought now that we’ve been alerted to the need to do something. And I think we all realize this, and that every little bit counts.
So, well done, Alex (because I would never have done this, not being on social media and all).
Perhaps this suit will be the tip of the spear that changes Section 230. Or perhaps your win (in the form of a settlement) will force social media companies to change regardless of section 230. One can hope!
Biden and Fauci Botched the Covid Pandemic Response WSJ today
Instead of protecting the vulnerable, they bet too heavily on vaccines to achieve herd immunity.
By Allysia Finley
There are many lessons to be gleaned from the U.S. pandemic response. House Democrats don’t care to study them.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis last month issued a deeply partisan report demonizing doctors who purportedly espoused “a dangerous and discredited herd immunity via mass infection strategy.”
The report took aim at the Trump administration’s embrace of the October 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, in which epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) and Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) advocated protecting the elderly and vulnerable while allowing schools and businesses to reopen.
This wasn’t a strategy to infect masses of people on purpose.
The goal was to minimize deaths and social and economic harm until the country reached herd immunity through infection or vaccination.
The Great Barrington strategy of “focused protection” helped minimize the pandemic’s collateral damage until vaccines became available.
The Biden administration then undertook a strategy of herd immunity via vaccination. But when this strategy failed, it doubled down with vaccine mandates.
From the outset of the pandemic, the mainstream medical establishment and government bureaucracy were aligned behind a lockdown-at-all-costs strategy.
The Trump White House tapped Scott Atlas, a Hoover Institution fellow and radiologist, for a contrarian perspective. Dr. Atlas endorsed the elements of the Great Barrington strategy.
The House report criticizes him for a memo in which he argued that “stopping all cases is not necessary, nor is it possible. It instills irrational fear into the public.
Non-prioritized testing is jeopardizing critical resources for truly critical testing and is creating problematic delays in test results for the most important populations.”
He was right on every point. Indiscriminate use of a scarce resource reduces public welfare.
When tests were in short supply, Dr. Atlas’s recommendation to save them for high-risk groups such as nursing-home residents made eminent sense.
His prescriptions and those of the Great Barrington Declaration aimed to maximize public welfare.
Democrats claim in their report that 130,000 lives could have been saved with more “mitigation,” but this is doubtful.
California and New York, which adopted mask mandates and lockdowns during the 2020-21 winter, fared no better than Florida and Texas, which didn’t.
What’s more, employment continues to lag significantly in liberal lockdown states.
Had all 50 states stayed shut down until vaccines were available, with the federal government paying tens of millions of people not to work—as Democrats ostensibly would have done—we might now be experiencing high unemployment and even higher inflation.
Vaccines ultimately saved the day by reducing the Covid disease burden and giving Democratic states a reason to lift their destructive lockdowns.
But the Biden administration bet too heavily on vaccines to confer herd immunity.
In December 2020, Anthony Fauci projected that a 75% to 85% vaccination rate could provide a “blanket of herd immunity.” This proved too optimistic.
An ever-mutating and increasingly transmissible virus, combined with waning vaccine effectiveness, made herd immunity a moving target.
By spring 2021, Pfizer’s clinical trial data showed that its vaccine was becoming less protective against infection as time passed.
Four months after the second dose, vaccine efficacy had declined to 84%, making breakthrough infections more likely and imperiling the Biden administration’s goals.
Yet Pfizer honcho Albert Bourla writes in his new book, “Moonshot,” that federal public-health officials feared disclosing this waning efficacy would breed more vaccine hesitancy.
The Biden administration kept it under wraps until July, when breakthrough infections in Provincetown, Mass., made it impossible to deny.
Stories in the media were corroborated by a study from Israel the same month showing vaccine protection against infection falling to 39%.
Only after the Washington Post published a leaked Centers for Disease Control and Prevention slide presentation showing that vaccine efficacy was declining did the agency acknowledge it.
Still, Dr. Fauci in August insisted that herd immunity could be achieved “really easily if we get everyone vaccinated.” He should have known by then that was false.
None of these realities stopped the Biden administration from mandating vaccines for private workers and arguing in court, despite evidence to the contrary, that doing so was “necessary to protect unvaccinated workers from the risk of contracting COVID-19” and “that vaccines dramatically reduce the risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19.”
After the Supreme Court blocked the mandate in January, the administration pivoted to a strategy of focused protection—e.g., distributing antiviral and monoclonal-antibody treatments and booster shots to the vulnerable.
Alas, the administration’s orders were too little, too late to help when deaths and hospitalizations soared in winter 2021-22.
Nearly 600,000 Covid deaths have occurred on Mr. Biden’s watch despite vaccines and better treatments—about 180,000 more than under Donald Trump.
One lesson is the importance of diverse opinions.
The Biden administration paid too much heed to experts such as Dr. Fauci and ignored those who argued against placing all its eggs in the vaccine basket.
Another lesson is that science evolves, and there’s no shame in admitting error.
Most scientists were wrong about what it would take to achieve herd immunity.
But it’s better to correct mistakes than compound them, which is what the Biden administration did.
Why it did is something for a future GOP Congress to investigate.
Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board
So now do I have to read Twitter to follow you or you staying on sub stack too?
No one cares about any of this. The only thing most of us care about is whether or not Twitter colluded with the White House (or other governmental actors) to suppress political speech that the White House did not like.
So it sounds like you get 5 more strikes? Okay fine but knowing what we do about the Twitter censors, those five strikes will run out by the end of the week. What we need is some sort of combination of the 1st Amendment and tenure so that scientific debate can continue without the threat of government intervention. A system whereby we have to go to court after every strike is unworkable in practice.
Lol. I love what you do Alex, but nothing is to stop them from banning you two weeks after you are re-instated. And then you can spend another year trying to get back on the platform.
Twitter and our social media overlords are a total fucking disgrace.
I think people can decide if the email you sent to your subscribers reflects how you settled.
May 11 Email from Alex:
In a matter of weeks, Twitter is supposed to hand over ALL the documents it has about me - including its communications with the federal government. I fully expect the little bird to demand a protective order that will hide those emails and texts and Slack chats and everything else from public view.
*********My lawyers and I believe you have the right to find out what I learn, and we will argue against a protective order if Twitter asks for one. *********
I am trying to raise $200,000.
I’ve set up a GoFundMe page here.
I want Twitter to know I have an army on my side that wants the *****truth *****
You know, since (apparently) a number of subscribers donated to Alex's legal fund under the impression that it would lead to something a lot more significant than Alex being allowed back on Twitter, maybe Alex should consider something -
If any payment was made to Alex as part of the settlement - how about donating it all to a legal fund set up for all of those banned Twitter users to use so that they can sue Twitter? I doubt that many of them have substack accounts that they can use to beg for donations to their legal causes.
If those of you who donated are perfectly happy with the outcome - so be it and I'll say nothing more. And, frankly, if there was no plea for donations and the outcome was exactly the same, I would actually be celebrating all of this. And if Alex were to suddenly refund all donations, I would also congratulate him and say well done.
But to say that nothing about this passes the smell test doesn't even begin to describe the situation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-fauci-botched-the-covid-response-infection-vaccine-paxlovid-testing-11657211031?st=cn48r1dgygbe5jn&reflink=article_email_share
Wall Street Journal Opinion column today.
I know Dr. McCullough and a few other's are following a similar path as Alex, but we will see
It's known that the govt. paid major media millions to promote the vaccines. You don't think they left out Twitter, FB and other social media, do you? It's not hard to figure these nuts out.
McCullough drops some really interesting facts in here - like a recent JAMA paper from Scandinavia detailing over 7000 brain hemorrhages or strokes within 28 days of the vaccine.
https://www.doctorsandscience.com/shows
Yet they are still at it! Just banned Zelenko Freedom Foundation. The late great Dr. Vladimir Zelenko as many would know was forefront with alt effective protocols early in the pandemic.
You made the Epoch Times Alex! Your settlement based upon discovery is a very smart move, which will of course pave the way for many reinstatements (Lil Bird won't want an assault of lawsuits). Fingers crossed for you and stay strong!
Saw on LinkedIn about an hour ago that layoffs are beginning at the little bird. Looks like recruiting for now. We'll see...
It’s a good thing we’re all interested in different things and willing to fight for them in our own way. This means that with no planning or co-ordination many battles will be fought now that we’ve been alerted to the need to do something. And I think we all realize this, and that every little bit counts.
So, well done, Alex (because I would never have done this, not being on social media and all).
Perhaps this suit will be the tip of the spear that changes Section 230. Or perhaps your win (in the form of a settlement) will force social media companies to change regardless of section 230. One can hope!
Thank you for leading the charge!
Biden and Fauci Botched the Covid Pandemic Response WSJ today
Instead of protecting the vulnerable, they bet too heavily on vaccines to achieve herd immunity.
By Allysia Finley
There are many lessons to be gleaned from the U.S. pandemic response. House Democrats don’t care to study them.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis last month issued a deeply partisan report demonizing doctors who purportedly espoused “a dangerous and discredited herd immunity via mass infection strategy.”
The report took aim at the Trump administration’s embrace of the October 2020 Great Barrington Declaration, in which epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff (Harvard), Sunetra Gupta (Oxford) and Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) advocated protecting the elderly and vulnerable while allowing schools and businesses to reopen.
This wasn’t a strategy to infect masses of people on purpose.
The goal was to minimize deaths and social and economic harm until the country reached herd immunity through infection or vaccination.
The Great Barrington strategy of “focused protection” helped minimize the pandemic’s collateral damage until vaccines became available.
The Biden administration then undertook a strategy of herd immunity via vaccination. But when this strategy failed, it doubled down with vaccine mandates.
From the outset of the pandemic, the mainstream medical establishment and government bureaucracy were aligned behind a lockdown-at-all-costs strategy.
The Trump White House tapped Scott Atlas, a Hoover Institution fellow and radiologist, for a contrarian perspective. Dr. Atlas endorsed the elements of the Great Barrington strategy.
The House report criticizes him for a memo in which he argued that “stopping all cases is not necessary, nor is it possible. It instills irrational fear into the public.
Non-prioritized testing is jeopardizing critical resources for truly critical testing and is creating problematic delays in test results for the most important populations.”
He was right on every point. Indiscriminate use of a scarce resource reduces public welfare.
When tests were in short supply, Dr. Atlas’s recommendation to save them for high-risk groups such as nursing-home residents made eminent sense.
His prescriptions and those of the Great Barrington Declaration aimed to maximize public welfare.
Democrats claim in their report that 130,000 lives could have been saved with more “mitigation,” but this is doubtful.
California and New York, which adopted mask mandates and lockdowns during the 2020-21 winter, fared no better than Florida and Texas, which didn’t.
What’s more, employment continues to lag significantly in liberal lockdown states.
Had all 50 states stayed shut down until vaccines were available, with the federal government paying tens of millions of people not to work—as Democrats ostensibly would have done—we might now be experiencing high unemployment and even higher inflation.
Vaccines ultimately saved the day by reducing the Covid disease burden and giving Democratic states a reason to lift their destructive lockdowns.
But the Biden administration bet too heavily on vaccines to confer herd immunity.
In December 2020, Anthony Fauci projected that a 75% to 85% vaccination rate could provide a “blanket of herd immunity.” This proved too optimistic.
An ever-mutating and increasingly transmissible virus, combined with waning vaccine effectiveness, made herd immunity a moving target.
By spring 2021, Pfizer’s clinical trial data showed that its vaccine was becoming less protective against infection as time passed.
Four months after the second dose, vaccine efficacy had declined to 84%, making breakthrough infections more likely and imperiling the Biden administration’s goals.
Yet Pfizer honcho Albert Bourla writes in his new book, “Moonshot,” that federal public-health officials feared disclosing this waning efficacy would breed more vaccine hesitancy.
The Biden administration kept it under wraps until July, when breakthrough infections in Provincetown, Mass., made it impossible to deny.
Stories in the media were corroborated by a study from Israel the same month showing vaccine protection against infection falling to 39%.
Only after the Washington Post published a leaked Centers for Disease Control and Prevention slide presentation showing that vaccine efficacy was declining did the agency acknowledge it.
Still, Dr. Fauci in August insisted that herd immunity could be achieved “really easily if we get everyone vaccinated.” He should have known by then that was false.
None of these realities stopped the Biden administration from mandating vaccines for private workers and arguing in court, despite evidence to the contrary, that doing so was “necessary to protect unvaccinated workers from the risk of contracting COVID-19” and “that vaccines dramatically reduce the risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19.”
After the Supreme Court blocked the mandate in January, the administration pivoted to a strategy of focused protection—e.g., distributing antiviral and monoclonal-antibody treatments and booster shots to the vulnerable.
Alas, the administration’s orders were too little, too late to help when deaths and hospitalizations soared in winter 2021-22.
Nearly 600,000 Covid deaths have occurred on Mr. Biden’s watch despite vaccines and better treatments—about 180,000 more than under Donald Trump.
One lesson is the importance of diverse opinions.
The Biden administration paid too much heed to experts such as Dr. Fauci and ignored those who argued against placing all its eggs in the vaccine basket.
Another lesson is that science evolves, and there’s no shame in admitting error.
Most scientists were wrong about what it would take to achieve herd immunity.
But it’s better to correct mistakes than compound them, which is what the Biden administration did.
Why it did is something for a future GOP Congress to investigate.
Ms. Finley is a member of the Journal’s editorial board