Alex- if you had NOT settled isn’t it true that, Twitter would have had to produce reams of discovery documents, emails (including those From Washington), internal communications, and gobs of other information that could have exposed the entire game and lots of dirty little secrets they couldn’t control or vet. Which is why the settled.
This is not a victory for the rest of us as I see it- you got your money and your promises and agreed to be silenced on the details, which is fine but the rest of us will simply be told we were banned under 230- FROM NOW ON. They will learn from this lawsuit how to avoid others.
sorry, this seems like is a sell out.
If you need the money I understand but don’t paint it as a victory for the greater good- it is not that.
Twitter seems to be on a tear lately, though. I used to follow Jean Rees (amazing number cruncher), Daniel Horowitz, Dr. Lynn Fynn, Jikklyleaks (always posted links to published studies and Pfizer docs, among others) and Igor Chudov. Jean's account was suspended weeks ago, but all the others were recent bans. It seems Twitter is doing its part to facilitate Covid Hysteria 2.0 by making it more difficult to disseminate anti-establishment information.
It really is. I should wear a Bp cuff when I go on, just to remind me not to visit that often. However, there are some things I just may miss so it keeps me coming back. ugh.
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.
“. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. “
While certainly Alex revels in his re-reinstatement, the real issue remains unknown. Is Twitter acting as an agent for the government thus implying 1st amendment applies? Most of us, I imagine, see social media functioning as a government agent following their demands.
Alex may be such an egoist that he must have that Twitter affirmation of his power, but the rest of us simply wish our viewpoints to get aired. We don't mind being chastised should we become rude or boors, but some really, really important notions have been suppressed because Uncle Sam doesn't like them.
The hard fought for discovery in this case closes with the case. I believe Alex is promising to try other ways of getting the information which puts us back where we started. This case is closed. No more discovery from this lawsuit will be forthcoming.
He has no grounds for a new case. But even if he did I’m sure his settlement includes some agreement that he will not turn around and sue them again for a related issue just as his side has received assurances that he will not be suspended again.
Thanks for the kind observation about my skills, uncalled for I think, but OK. In his latest articles he has not reaffirmed the discovery issue. It may very well be just an oversight in his glory at platform return. As I observed the missing point, I remain concerned that the larger issue remains unfulfilled. I simply was stating my concerns.
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.
Who cares what Twitter admits re misinformation? It’s alway bullshit coming from them. They have lost an incredible amount of respect when it comes to Truth. All they have is Suppression, they have lost Persuasion.
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.
How do you know he can be banned again? I would imagine his lawyers may have negotiated a settlement that makes it so Alex cannot be suspended in the future (or at least for Covid tweets). I don't know, maybe he didn't. But I cannot imagine Alex and/or his lawyers have not thought of this.
That’s what makes the settlement so shitty! Nobody can know any of the details. Does Twitter admit that that Alex did not write misinformation, or did they admit they didn’t follow the correct steps to punish a misinformer? We don’t know! Is Alex reset to 0 strikes? We don’t know! Can he be banned again? We don’t know! Can any of these juicy details be used by other banned people? We don’t know!
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 *****
Also, I don't know if Alex did this, but I was notified by substack that I am blocked from receiving emails. I mean, I'm a paid subscriber. I didn't set my account to block emails.
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.
Guys: I don't think you get to contribute to a war and then ask for your money back if your side doesn't win exactly the way you wanted them to. Missiles and legal work costs money whether you get the exact results you want or not. His attorneys bloodied Twitter's nose in a way no one has managed to before and it may have some positive ramifications for future battles with them.
"Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines." Two lines later "Now the ask: ...[money please]."
“. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. ”
He is a liar and grifter. Now Alex, and all you white knights, let me hear you hem and haw your way out of HIS OWN WORDS.
I don’t want my money back but I think it remains to be seen whether this turns out to be a significant victory. And I am disappointed, though not shocked, that we know no more now than we did before about the key issue of government collusion.
Ken- with respect, this is not a war but a lawsuit and the point at which settlements would be offered in exchange for silence or lack of exposure was totally predictable . Alex himself predicted it when he declared he would not settle and preserve his discovery rights and publish the outcome of exercising those rights, he called that “the reddist of lines” and based on that he asked for money and trusting his word, people donated. He had a choice to continue to uncover the truth or settle (for money) - I’m not judging his decision per se but anyone who donated based on his promise to carryon to the bitter end has every right to expect their money back and every right to be disappointed. Just as you would If you donated to any charity or person who by choice did not carry out their stated mission.
Maybe a more promising case than Alex’s is O’Handley vs Padilla and Twitter. California state government is directly implicated in squelching plaintiff’s first amendment rights. Background here:
My personal opinion with no disrespect. When I donate, I do exactly that and hope and pray it goes to the cause. Alex nicely told us he had to pay for lawyers and to show he has supporters. I would never expect anything in return for my donation. We need to be patient, wait and see what else may come out. Thrilled to hear that Twitter did do something, settle with Alex. Respectfully ..dk
You should always expect something for your donation. Charities offer a mission statement and a philanthropic goal is assumed when you donate. If you donate to an animal rescue and they spend the money doing anything else - you can get it back. In this case Alex made a clear intention to fight the big fight not the little fight. I believe people who donated on that basis have the right to get their money back. Also with respect.
Your attitude kind of smells too. Who would donate expecting some kind of payback? Do you demand a percentage of the profits from Goodwill when you donate to them? Kind of what you seem to be suggesting here. There was no guarantee of any outcome in this case.
OK, let me spell it out in really small words (and I'd speak very slowly if this were an actual conversation).
Alex gets banned from Twitter - a really stupid thing, and many people (including me) agree that there are many reasons for why this is wrong. Alex wrote a book about covid - I bought it and thought it was well worth the money.
Alex starts a column on Substack, which I subscribed to because I thought that the information was worth the money.
Alex (several times) boasts about how many people have subscribed which, if you do the math, earned Alex quite a bit of money - which I have zero problem with. In fact, I congratulate him for that. He also boasts about how many people have bought his book, which I also have no problem (other than the fact that the boasts are unnecessary, and a little bit arrogant in nature. But, whatever). This also earns Alex quite a bit of money. Again - good for him.
Then Alex tells us about his Grand Campaign to slay the censors of Twitter, and explains how noble his cause is. This is followed almost immediately by begging for donations to his legal fund.
Now, I was already becoming a little put off by Alex's attitude, essentially declaring that he was "telling the truth" in his posts, and that anyone who was upset about anything that he might have written was upset simply because Alex was telling the truth and implying that if readers were really on Team Reality they should shut up and submit to Alex's Truth Telling. This included an unsolicited attack on Dr Malone and ridiculing supporters of the use of Ivermectin - two subjects that I don't have a firm opinion on, simply because I have not done much investigation on either - but the entire episode reeked of really childish behavior.
But Alex is Truth. Kind of like Fauci is Science. So shut up and obey. You can question anyone else - BUT DO NOT QUESTION ALEX THE TRUTH TELLER!
And donate! Because it's the right thing to do! Alex is fighting for all of you....
Except, maybe not really.
I didn't donate, because I figured that Alex had already earned quite a bit of money, and I'm not inclined to spend my hard-earned money to support the lawsuit of a by-now fairly wealthy man who I now was not confident had much more than his own self-interests in mind.
So let's close the loop on your analogy, and another ridiculous analogy of "supporting a war" that I've read in these comments. I donate to Goodwill so that my donations can be used to help others. Not so that someone who works for Goodwill can get rich without helping the people who they claimed that they would serve with my donations. I don't see the "helping others" here yet. I can imagine an upcoming book that earns Alex more money (no problem with that), but if that book simply earns more money for Alex, and nothing else - then what was the point in donating?
And as to the stupid comment about fighting a war - the real analogy is if somebody sent billions to Zelensky to fight the Russians, and instead he used that money to move to Poland and buy a sprawling mansion. But hey - he'll be giving us all the scoop on what a bad guy Putin is, and writing a book for you to buy, read and feel outraged about!
In the meantime, Kiev will be just another suburb outside of Moscow.
So, once again, you and anyone else are free to spend your money in whatever manner you want. That's your right.
But I'm glad I chose not to. Because, as of right now, I'd feel like a total sucker if I did.
Thanks for the small words. He's said he'd refund donations if you feel gypped. You didn't donate. Don't fret over it. You can cancel your subscription too.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on how you would feel if you had donated. I do not feel that way. We have Value Village close to where I live, a few years back I was editing items in my house and donated many almost new or hardly used items. I thought they were going to help some people that are in need, only to find out, they were selling these items. That was a surprise, I was naive at the time. Then learned that the people, employees that work there, go through donations and grab them for themselves first (disgusting) then mark a price on whatever may be not appealing to them. Since my lesson learned, I go to woman's shelters give there, ask friends if they were interested in anything and the last is I put it in front of my house with a sign saying FREE, by the next morning things are gone. Donation is just that, to me. Cheers from Canada.
Similar to resale outlets like Uptown Cheapskates and Sarah’s Secret. The employees hide the good stuff and have their friends “find” them and purchase them at negligible prices.
When you make a charitable contribution it is with the express expectation that you will receive the philanthropic value that was held out to induce you to donate. So yes if goodwill takes your money and does not use it for their stated mission plus reasonable administrative expenses - you can get it back. If they do that consistently they could lose their tax free status or even be criminally liable. I’m not suggesting that’s where we are here but for those who don’t think you have a right to expect anything when you make a donation- that is simply incorrect.
The complaints I'm seeing here look like the complainers expected direct payback in some form. The outcome of the suit was never easy to predict. This may have been the best option to get any gain against Twitter. We don't know and if you gave, you might have known you'd end up not knowing. Lawsuits are messy and expensive and there's a reason most of us won't try to sue Twitter.
Post: Add Judge Alsup to the folks who are apparently mad Berenson v Twitter settled…
Alex Berenson
Jun 30
An unusual ruling, to say the least.
Can’t make anyone happy today.
I will say again: YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW. And I was well aware that no one would forget my Substack on June 6, the one where I promised all of you there would be no settlement without third-party discovery.
So you can choose to believe I went back on my word for 30 pieces of silver, or you can choose to believe I meant what I said. ANYONE WHO WANTS A DONATION BACK IS WELCOME TO IT, JUST LET ME KNOW. (the 2nd sentence in all caps was added - it was not all caps in the original).
——————
No need to be donating the money. Alex made clear unhappy people should simply ask him for it back…
He seems to have reversed course and defended it by making two statements in ALL CAPS, lol. I didn’t give him enough money that I really care about it (I’m not stupid) but there’s nothing wrong with noticing his “inconsistency.”
Hence the document requests. But it all points at Gov't intervention. Good luck to Alex for getting hold of those emails. Eventually. We all know its dirty. It's politics. It takes good attorneys to ferret out the facts.
And it seems now going forward those who fell for the injection trap are locked in to being more vulnerable to infection with their immune systems altered in a permanent way more likely than not. Just what the mongers hoped for I bet from the get go. Take over the immune systems of people rather than allow natural immunity to be in charge. Nature always trumps the EGO of man...
Agree Brogan12 and time will show, as folks start to put 2+2 together. Today in NYC there is literally a line for the monkeypox vax. Many have learned nothing. Darwin called it first!
The relative depth of the psychosis is directly related to the BLUE cities and states that indoctrinated intensely. Chicago, NYC, LA, Philly etc in larger markets and mid size BLUE cities like Madison Wisconsin where my sis says people still wear masks in their cars alone with windows up on a sunny day. The psychosis is REAL and how is this NOT considered by itself a crime against humanity to intentionally through public policy using un-elected officials to drive such a fraudulent narrative!
It is truly psychosis and the map shows where the psychotics are. To your second point: Thought Crime is now Public Policy in CA, and yes - the unelected drive these "policies". That said, it seems Blue States are starting to blush Purple or Red. Anyhoo....if you are an illegal alien, CA is your preferred destination. What CA taxpayers voted to support this. Trojan Horse. Destroying us from within.
I posted this elsewhere. It may explain what is driving some of the dynamics in these Psychotic States
====
Did folks see the recent Pew Research report on Twitter?
One third of all tweets are political and here's the stats on who posts political content to Twitter: 78% from 50+, 70% from women, 70% from college educated, 85% Democrats. Not hate-filled male white supremacist Trump supporters after all.
Is Twitter the Revenge of Hillary? Think about it.
The Clintons made a massive investment in social media after Obama used it to outmaneuver them for the 2008 nomination. 27 million True Believer followers (even if half of them are fake) is a lot of weight to throw around.
I wonder what role this network had in pushing the CoVid Con agenda which if memory serves was HIGHLY politicized. Masks = good. Double vaxed with endless boosters = good. Mindless compliance = good. And everyone else...well they should just shut up or be shut up.
Final clue: The Clintons are masters of accusing the other side of the very things they themselves are doing (dirty deals with overseas players, secret email back channels, subversion etc.)
All politicians are in for themselves (Boris? Macron? Trudeau? Biden le pere?) Never once was I called to take part in a Pew/Ipsos/Gallup et al, et al survey. Who on this blog has ever been surveyed? If you even attempt one online, you are categorized immediately and if you are smart - exit. Can't trust those polls and reports based upon those "polls".
Children who will be adults, leaders in 20 years. This was a total hijack of children's minds, memories, moral compasses, and self worth. Buckle up for this ride.
I find the part under headline "they bet" totality misleading. This was all intentional from inception and there must be a reckoning for what was done with humanity in totality, and what continues since. Not ONE person or entity responsible for it all has remotely been held to REAL account .Not ONE! Its not like we all do not know who they are either. It's 2.6 years now since whu-flu lab release in CHINA...WTF!
And let's not forget Jordan Peterson, recently kicked off Twitter for saying Ellen Page is a woman, regardless of whether she claims to be a man named Elliott Page.
Or maybe I have backwards? Elliott Page is a man who claims to be a woman named Ellen Page?
Oh my. I'm so confused by these mentally ill people.
Oh, and Dave Rubin, too--kicked off for agreeing with Jordan Peterson.
Page used to be a woman who was attracted to other women. Now she's a man who is attracted to other women, but now since she's a man it's super creepy and she's a part of the oppressive patriarchy.
It’s really difficult to see this as something other than a stunt to revive a stalled out career, post being a semi- “it-girl” going back to the film Juno.
Now if she gets roles it will seem that it was based not on acting talent, but on the fact that it “checks off a box” in the new rules-driven film industry. Even directors I have liked in the past have all these “gratuitous” characters and plot lines.
One of my big problems is that they literally changed the sex of her character in Umbrella Academy, but she's an actress......shouldn't she be able to pull off playing a female?
Or do we now need to tie real-life drama into our fake dramas?
Maybe that’s why when Page’s “super supportive significant other” rather unceremoniously dumped the transitioning Page I didn’t hear any howls that Page’s “ex” was a t-phobe. Funny how Hollywood works.
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?
I’ll be here
Alex- if you had NOT settled isn’t it true that, Twitter would have had to produce reams of discovery documents, emails (including those From Washington), internal communications, and gobs of other information that could have exposed the entire game and lots of dirty little secrets they couldn’t control or vet. Which is why the settled.
This is not a victory for the rest of us as I see it- you got your money and your promises and agreed to be silenced on the details, which is fine but the rest of us will simply be told we were banned under 230- FROM NOW ON. They will learn from this lawsuit how to avoid others.
sorry, this seems like is a sell out.
If you need the money I understand but don’t paint it as a victory for the greater good- it is not that.
And does a case under seal provide precedent? Can other plaintiffs actually use Alex's case as a foundation?
I always said when and if you get reinstated I would get back on. I am not so sure now.
Don't engage with Twitter. It's a sewer.
My thoughts exactly and all it will do is piss me off. I'll stay here.
I disagree. I "follow" only one Tweeter. But I read the feeds of a number of people. Here are some of them.
@alexandrosM
@Suriyakmaps
@angrybklynmom
@ClimateAudit
@EthicalSkeptic
@gerdosi
@mtracey
@StabellBenn
@raphaels7
@Tolling_Bell
They all provide or link to interesting information. There are many others.
Twitter seems to be on a tear lately, though. I used to follow Jean Rees (amazing number cruncher), Daniel Horowitz, Dr. Lynn Fynn, Jikklyleaks (always posted links to published studies and Pfizer docs, among others) and Igor Chudov. Jean's account was suspended weeks ago, but all the others were recent bans. It seems Twitter is doing its part to facilitate Covid Hysteria 2.0 by making it more difficult to disseminate anti-establishment information.
It really is. I should wear a Bp cuff when I go on, just to remind me not to visit that often. However, there are some things I just may miss so it keeps me coming back. ugh.
Thank goodness 😅
The puppy chirps.
He didn’t share the details- he sold his right to do that to Twitter. He can’t talk.
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.
“. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. “
Alex is a liar.
Even the most well thought out battle plans rarely survive initial contact with the enemy. That doesn’t make him a liar.
While certainly Alex revels in his re-reinstatement, the real issue remains unknown. Is Twitter acting as an agent for the government thus implying 1st amendment applies? Most of us, I imagine, see social media functioning as a government agent following their demands.
Alex may be such an egoist that he must have that Twitter affirmation of his power, but the rest of us simply wish our viewpoints to get aired. We don't mind being chastised should we become rude or boors, but some really, really important notions have been suppressed because Uncle Sam doesn't like them.
Apparently, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit. He is continuing with discovery regarding Twitter’s relationship with the government.
The hard fought for discovery in this case closes with the case. I believe Alex is promising to try other ways of getting the information which puts us back where we started. This case is closed. No more discovery from this lawsuit will be forthcoming.
He can file a new case.
He has no grounds for a new case. But even if he did I’m sure his settlement includes some agreement that he will not turn around and sue them again for a related issue just as his side has received assurances that he will not be suspended again.
Its done
The Government and Twitter Won ⚫️
Thanks for the kind observation about my skills, uncalled for I think, but OK. In his latest articles he has not reaffirmed the discovery issue. It may very well be just an oversight in his glory at platform return. As I observed the missing point, I remain concerned that the larger issue remains unfulfilled. I simply was stating my concerns.
Your method of stating your concerns left much to be desired.
The first line of the post says it all: “I can’t talk”
Twitter and the government won ⚫️
HE can’t talk but now the path forward is clear, thanks to him.
How is the path forward clear?
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.
Yep. Twitter is not admitting that what Alex posted isn’t misinformation, it’s admitting that it didn’t follow it’s 5 strike policy in his case.
Who cares what Twitter admits re misinformation? It’s alway bullshit coming from them. They have lost an incredible amount of respect when it comes to Truth. All they have is Suppression, they have lost Persuasion.
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.
How do you know he can be banned again? I would imagine his lawyers may have negotiated a settlement that makes it so Alex cannot be suspended in the future (or at least for Covid tweets). I don't know, maybe he didn't. But I cannot imagine Alex and/or his lawyers have not thought of this.
That’s what makes the settlement so shitty! Nobody can know any of the details. Does Twitter admit that that Alex did not write misinformation, or did they admit they didn’t follow the correct steps to punish a misinformer? We don’t know! Is Alex reset to 0 strikes? We don’t know! Can he be banned again? We don’t know! Can any of these juicy details be used by other banned people? We don’t know!
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 *****
Lol, that’s why this all a big meh to me now.
Also, I don't know if Alex did this, but I was notified by substack that I am blocked from receiving emails. I mean, I'm a paid subscriber. I didn't set my account to block emails.
That might mean your mail service is returning your mail.
You may need to whitelist SubStack.
The notification was within my Substack account information. Meaning, it was substack originated.
That might mean that SubStack had gotten a notice from your ISP. You would need to see the SMTP code involved. Some of the codes are shown here: https://www.businessemailetiquette.com/undeliverable-or-returned-emails-2/
That’s so racist!
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.
Guys: I don't think you get to contribute to a war and then ask for your money back if your side doesn't win exactly the way you wanted them to. Missiles and legal work costs money whether you get the exact results you want or not. His attorneys bloodied Twitter's nose in a way no one has managed to before and it may have some positive ramifications for future battles with them.
"Not for reinstatement, not for money, not for all the viruses in China. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. There are other things I will (and have) given up, you have to give to get, but this is the reddest of lines." Two lines later "Now the ask: ...[money please]."
Alex’s own words:
“. I will NOT agree to any settlement that does not preserve my discovery rights about third-party communications AND give me the right to publicize them. ”
He is a liar and grifter. Now Alex, and all you white knights, let me hear you hem and haw your way out of HIS OWN WORDS.
Remember in the show Seinfeld, when Newman wouldn’t deliver the mail because it was raining? And George started to recite the mailman’s creed:
“Neither rain, nor sleet, … it’s the first one!”
Not for reinstatement, not for money,… it’s the first one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bw_MOtnhIxw
Alex - not going to respond to YOUR OWN WORDS??? Seriously - no response from the white knight army???
YOU
ARE
A
LIAR.
And I am making it my mission to confront you on every opportunity.
Now censor me two faced.
(Still waiting on all the damning Ivermectin evidence)
You need a paper lunch sack to stop the hyperventilating
Lighten up, Francis.
I was trying to locate that. The red line thing reminds me of Obama’s “line in the sand”, lol.
I don’t want my money back but I think it remains to be seen whether this turns out to be a significant victory. And I am disappointed, though not shocked, that we know no more now than we did before about the key issue of government collusion.
Ken- with respect, this is not a war but a lawsuit and the point at which settlements would be offered in exchange for silence or lack of exposure was totally predictable . Alex himself predicted it when he declared he would not settle and preserve his discovery rights and publish the outcome of exercising those rights, he called that “the reddist of lines” and based on that he asked for money and trusting his word, people donated. He had a choice to continue to uncover the truth or settle (for money) - I’m not judging his decision per se but anyone who donated based on his promise to carryon to the bitter end has every right to expect their money back and every right to be disappointed. Just as you would If you donated to any charity or person who by choice did not carry out their stated mission.
Gotcha. Thanks for this clarification.
It wont let me hit the like button, so Im saying I like your civil reply Ken
Not sure why but I can’t hit the like button either. What’s up with that?
Maybe a more promising case than Alex’s is O’Handley vs Padilla and Twitter. California state government is directly implicated in squelching plaintiff’s first amendment rights. Background here:
https://libertycenter.org/cases/ohandley-v-padilla/
Amen!
My personal opinion with no disrespect. When I donate, I do exactly that and hope and pray it goes to the cause. Alex nicely told us he had to pay for lawyers and to show he has supporters. I would never expect anything in return for my donation. We need to be patient, wait and see what else may come out. Thrilled to hear that Twitter did do something, settle with Alex. Respectfully ..dk
You should always expect something for your donation. Charities offer a mission statement and a philanthropic goal is assumed when you donate. If you donate to an animal rescue and they spend the money doing anything else - you can get it back. In this case Alex made a clear intention to fight the big fight not the little fight. I believe people who donated on that basis have the right to get their money back. Also with respect.
Your attitude kind of smells too. Who would donate expecting some kind of payback? Do you demand a percentage of the profits from Goodwill when you donate to them? Kind of what you seem to be suggesting here. There was no guarantee of any outcome in this case.
OK, let me spell it out in really small words (and I'd speak very slowly if this were an actual conversation).
Alex gets banned from Twitter - a really stupid thing, and many people (including me) agree that there are many reasons for why this is wrong. Alex wrote a book about covid - I bought it and thought it was well worth the money.
Alex starts a column on Substack, which I subscribed to because I thought that the information was worth the money.
Alex (several times) boasts about how many people have subscribed which, if you do the math, earned Alex quite a bit of money - which I have zero problem with. In fact, I congratulate him for that. He also boasts about how many people have bought his book, which I also have no problem (other than the fact that the boasts are unnecessary, and a little bit arrogant in nature. But, whatever). This also earns Alex quite a bit of money. Again - good for him.
Then Alex tells us about his Grand Campaign to slay the censors of Twitter, and explains how noble his cause is. This is followed almost immediately by begging for donations to his legal fund.
Now, I was already becoming a little put off by Alex's attitude, essentially declaring that he was "telling the truth" in his posts, and that anyone who was upset about anything that he might have written was upset simply because Alex was telling the truth and implying that if readers were really on Team Reality they should shut up and submit to Alex's Truth Telling. This included an unsolicited attack on Dr Malone and ridiculing supporters of the use of Ivermectin - two subjects that I don't have a firm opinion on, simply because I have not done much investigation on either - but the entire episode reeked of really childish behavior.
But Alex is Truth. Kind of like Fauci is Science. So shut up and obey. You can question anyone else - BUT DO NOT QUESTION ALEX THE TRUTH TELLER!
And donate! Because it's the right thing to do! Alex is fighting for all of you....
Except, maybe not really.
I didn't donate, because I figured that Alex had already earned quite a bit of money, and I'm not inclined to spend my hard-earned money to support the lawsuit of a by-now fairly wealthy man who I now was not confident had much more than his own self-interests in mind.
So let's close the loop on your analogy, and another ridiculous analogy of "supporting a war" that I've read in these comments. I donate to Goodwill so that my donations can be used to help others. Not so that someone who works for Goodwill can get rich without helping the people who they claimed that they would serve with my donations. I don't see the "helping others" here yet. I can imagine an upcoming book that earns Alex more money (no problem with that), but if that book simply earns more money for Alex, and nothing else - then what was the point in donating?
And as to the stupid comment about fighting a war - the real analogy is if somebody sent billions to Zelensky to fight the Russians, and instead he used that money to move to Poland and buy a sprawling mansion. But hey - he'll be giving us all the scoop on what a bad guy Putin is, and writing a book for you to buy, read and feel outraged about!
In the meantime, Kiev will be just another suburb outside of Moscow.
So, once again, you and anyone else are free to spend your money in whatever manner you want. That's your right.
But I'm glad I chose not to. Because, as of right now, I'd feel like a total sucker if I did.
Thanks for the small words. He's said he'd refund donations if you feel gypped. You didn't donate. Don't fret over it. You can cancel your subscription too.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on how you would feel if you had donated. I do not feel that way. We have Value Village close to where I live, a few years back I was editing items in my house and donated many almost new or hardly used items. I thought they were going to help some people that are in need, only to find out, they were selling these items. That was a surprise, I was naive at the time. Then learned that the people, employees that work there, go through donations and grab them for themselves first (disgusting) then mark a price on whatever may be not appealing to them. Since my lesson learned, I go to woman's shelters give there, ask friends if they were interested in anything and the last is I put it in front of my house with a sign saying FREE, by the next morning things are gone. Donation is just that, to me. Cheers from Canada.
Similar to resale outlets like Uptown Cheapskates and Sarah’s Secret. The employees hide the good stuff and have their friends “find” them and purchase them at negligible prices.
Indeed, that to me was a surprise and disgusting. How low can some one go!!
When you make a charitable contribution it is with the express expectation that you will receive the philanthropic value that was held out to induce you to donate. So yes if goodwill takes your money and does not use it for their stated mission plus reasonable administrative expenses - you can get it back. If they do that consistently they could lose their tax free status or even be criminally liable. I’m not suggesting that’s where we are here but for those who don’t think you have a right to expect anything when you make a donation- that is simply incorrect.
The complaints I'm seeing here look like the complainers expected direct payback in some form. The outcome of the suit was never easy to predict. This may have been the best option to get any gain against Twitter. We don't know and if you gave, you might have known you'd end up not knowing. Lawsuits are messy and expensive and there's a reason most of us won't try to sue Twitter.
From Alex Berenson on June 30th
Post: Add Judge Alsup to the folks who are apparently mad Berenson v Twitter settled…
Alex Berenson
Jun 30
An unusual ruling, to say the least.
Can’t make anyone happy today.
I will say again: YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW. And I was well aware that no one would forget my Substack on June 6, the one where I promised all of you there would be no settlement without third-party discovery.
So you can choose to believe I went back on my word for 30 pieces of silver, or you can choose to believe I meant what I said. ANYONE WHO WANTS A DONATION BACK IS WELCOME TO IT, JUST LET ME KNOW. (the 2nd sentence in all caps was added - it was not all caps in the original).
——————
No need to be donating the money. Alex made clear unhappy people should simply ask him for it back…
He seems to have reversed course and defended it by making two statements in ALL CAPS, lol. I didn’t give him enough money that I really care about it (I’m not stupid) but there’s nothing wrong with noticing his “inconsistency.”
Just to be clear, I put the last sentence in all caps.
If Alex has changed his tune on refunds that's troubling.
It is too bad if there was something there and the public won't get a chance to see it now.
Twitter, Alex, and Darth Vader: “I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it further.”
If people want refunds then obviously they should not have made the donation in the first place.
This is not Walmart or Target. This is the Constitution. There are no refunds.
But there is no constitutional issue unless the government is implicated, and we don’t know any more about that than we did before.
Hence the document requests. But it all points at Gov't intervention. Good luck to Alex for getting hold of those emails. Eventually. We all know its dirty. It's politics. It takes good attorneys to ferret out the facts.
Caveat emptor, it appears.
Caveat vendor too it seems.
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.
The cracks in the MSM infrastructure grow wider. Love it!
And it seems now going forward those who fell for the injection trap are locked in to being more vulnerable to infection with their immune systems altered in a permanent way more likely than not. Just what the mongers hoped for I bet from the get go. Take over the immune systems of people rather than allow natural immunity to be in charge. Nature always trumps the EGO of man...
Agree Brogan12 and time will show, as folks start to put 2+2 together. Today in NYC there is literally a line for the monkeypox vax. Many have learned nothing. Darwin called it first!
The relative depth of the psychosis is directly related to the BLUE cities and states that indoctrinated intensely. Chicago, NYC, LA, Philly etc in larger markets and mid size BLUE cities like Madison Wisconsin where my sis says people still wear masks in their cars alone with windows up on a sunny day. The psychosis is REAL and how is this NOT considered by itself a crime against humanity to intentionally through public policy using un-elected officials to drive such a fraudulent narrative!
It is truly psychosis and the map shows where the psychotics are. To your second point: Thought Crime is now Public Policy in CA, and yes - the unelected drive these "policies". That said, it seems Blue States are starting to blush Purple or Red. Anyhoo....if you are an illegal alien, CA is your preferred destination. What CA taxpayers voted to support this. Trojan Horse. Destroying us from within.
I posted this elsewhere. It may explain what is driving some of the dynamics in these Psychotic States
====
Did folks see the recent Pew Research report on Twitter?
One third of all tweets are political and here's the stats on who posts political content to Twitter: 78% from 50+, 70% from women, 70% from college educated, 85% Democrats. Not hate-filled male white supremacist Trump supporters after all.
Is Twitter the Revenge of Hillary? Think about it.
The Clintons made a massive investment in social media after Obama used it to outmaneuver them for the 2008 nomination. 27 million True Believer followers (even if half of them are fake) is a lot of weight to throw around.
I wonder what role this network had in pushing the CoVid Con agenda which if memory serves was HIGHLY politicized. Masks = good. Double vaxed with endless boosters = good. Mindless compliance = good. And everyone else...well they should just shut up or be shut up.
Final clue: The Clintons are masters of accusing the other side of the very things they themselves are doing (dirty deals with overseas players, secret email back channels, subversion etc.)
All politicians are in for themselves (Boris? Macron? Trudeau? Biden le pere?) Never once was I called to take part in a Pew/Ipsos/Gallup et al, et al survey. Who on this blog has ever been surveyed? If you even attempt one online, you are categorized immediately and if you are smart - exit. Can't trust those polls and reports based upon those "polls".
The devastation to human minds is surreal...especially what was done to children!
Children who will be adults, leaders in 20 years. This was a total hijack of children's minds, memories, moral compasses, and self worth. Buckle up for this ride.
No doubt of things only getting rougher from here
Bay Area/ San Francisco ( today) promoting people start to wear masks
OUTDOORS again
lil China
I find the part under headline "they bet" totality misleading. This was all intentional from inception and there must be a reckoning for what was done with humanity in totality, and what continues since. Not ONE person or entity responsible for it all has remotely been held to REAL account .Not ONE! Its not like we all do not know who they are either. It's 2.6 years now since whu-flu lab release in CHINA...WTF!
Wanted to read it. Not signing up in order to do so.
Is there a way to read this without a subscription to WSJ?
The comments were amazing! People are soooo deluded!
I know Dr. McCullough and a few other's are following a similar path as Alex, but we will see
And let's not forget Jordan Peterson, recently kicked off Twitter for saying Ellen Page is a woman, regardless of whether she claims to be a man named Elliott Page.
Or maybe I have backwards? Elliott Page is a man who claims to be a woman named Ellen Page?
Oh my. I'm so confused by these mentally ill people.
Oh, and Dave Rubin, too--kicked off for agreeing with Jordan Peterson.
Whether Page is male or female is completely provable with a tiny bit of dna. Twitter doesn’t get to decide that. God did.
I thought for sure that Twitter made all the decisions.
Silly me.
Page used to be a woman who was attracted to other women. Now she's a man who is attracted to other women, but now since she's a man it's super creepy and she's a part of the oppressive patriarchy.
I'm waiting for the next publicity stunt that she launches when no one pays attention to this one.
And a big THANKS for "misgendering."
It’s really difficult to see this as something other than a stunt to revive a stalled out career, post being a semi- “it-girl” going back to the film Juno.
Now if she gets roles it will seem that it was based not on acting talent, but on the fact that it “checks off a box” in the new rules-driven film industry. Even directors I have liked in the past have all these “gratuitous” characters and plot lines.
One of my big problems is that they literally changed the sex of her character in Umbrella Academy, but she's an actress......shouldn't she be able to pull off playing a female?
Or do we now need to tie real-life drama into our fake dramas?
https://nypost.com/2022/06/22/elliot-page-is-proud-to-be-trans-on-umbrella-academy/
I'd never heard of her until Jordan Peterson's post. I guess I live a blissfully sheltered life.
Maybe that’s why when Page’s “super supportive significant other” rather unceremoniously dumped the transitioning Page I didn’t hear any howls that Page’s “ex” was a t-phobe. Funny how Hollywood works.
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!
More likely it'll force social media companies to instruct employees to NEVER EVER send an email to anyone who might have the nerve to sue them.
The snake swallows its own tail. Could this be the End of Woke? Praying.....
While you're praying, say one for that idiot Rhode Island state senator who posted her "twerking" video on Instagram.
That woman needs serious therapy.
That was one scary They/Them/Theirs lol!
I suspect 230 is here to stay as long as social media companies continue to shovel cash to our elected representatives.
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