I think you are being harsh on Malhotra and Bhattacharya. Whilst what you and Sonia say is correct, Bhattacharya stood up at the start when nobody else was. It is true he believed Covid was dangerous for over 50s and thought the vaccine was a good thing for that age group—but he opposed compulsion, masks, school closures, business closures, travel bans and mandation. Malhotra has admitted his mistake over and over again and nearly from the start highlighted the role of big pharma in medical training and regulation.
It is hard to believe that neither sought to clarify if covid was deadly, if it existed, if the vaccine was needed and if it worked.
The proof of the pudding will be if they effect change, but one must recognise the size of the task for as you know this is deeply embedded in institutions.
I would rather have them than others—having shared platforms and articles with them I feel they are more genuine than most-even if the dream team has seemed to change its position.
Yes-I too am disappointed in that-Gupta is the same. I do not understand why they appear to lend no credibility to all the research showing that nothing really happened.
I suppose I tend to concentrate on what they would have done--and am somewhat heartened by the knowledge that at least then they would not have mandated anything. The world of US politics is murky---I think RFK only secured his nomination by one vote--that of a senator with interests in measles vaccines or some vaccine anyway. No doubt they will have to fight every change through the senate/house--that will involve compromises.
Perhaps. But, then, compromise is no good when fundamental human rights issues are involved. I'm no doctor, but I was able to determine - very easily - based on the available evidence that there was no pandemic, no need for a vaccine or any need for the public health interventions. You too. But it seems that everyone in MAHA thinks there was a pandemic and that public health interventions were required. And most/all were vaccinated. So we have a problem. But given these circumstances I'm not prepared to offer my support. MAHA is merely putting lipstick on a pig.
I agree that if we could see-why couldn't/ won't they.
I agree re public health interventions--dangerously close to WHO
I am a bit more sanguine--wait and see--sadly the other side have too much money/power and whether I support is neither here nor there. I think they have better values than the previous bunch-but as I have said-the finance and the philosophy are still in place ,as are many of the people. I have just finished a 3 part series on the evidence against lockdowns and masks and what was or should have been known at the time. The UK is still attached to WHO and that is, for me, the biggest threat--the WHO Pandemic treaty in the hands of our politicians.....
Interesting development. https://x.com/JeffreyPeel/status/1924467007136649220
I think you are being harsh on Malhotra and Bhattacharya. Whilst what you and Sonia say is correct, Bhattacharya stood up at the start when nobody else was. It is true he believed Covid was dangerous for over 50s and thought the vaccine was a good thing for that age group—but he opposed compulsion, masks, school closures, business closures, travel bans and mandation. Malhotra has admitted his mistake over and over again and nearly from the start highlighted the role of big pharma in medical training and regulation.
It is hard to believe that neither sought to clarify if covid was deadly, if it existed, if the vaccine was needed and if it worked.
The proof of the pudding will be if they effect change, but one must recognise the size of the task for as you know this is deeply embedded in institutions.
I would rather have them than others—having shared platforms and articles with them I feel they are more genuine than most-even if the dream team has seemed to change its position.
To be fair, Sonia was more conciliatory than I. My issue is that both will not depart from the pandemic narrative.
Yes-I too am disappointed in that-Gupta is the same. I do not understand why they appear to lend no credibility to all the research showing that nothing really happened.
I suppose I tend to concentrate on what they would have done--and am somewhat heartened by the knowledge that at least then they would not have mandated anything. The world of US politics is murky---I think RFK only secured his nomination by one vote--that of a senator with interests in measles vaccines or some vaccine anyway. No doubt they will have to fight every change through the senate/house--that will involve compromises.
Perhaps. But, then, compromise is no good when fundamental human rights issues are involved. I'm no doctor, but I was able to determine - very easily - based on the available evidence that there was no pandemic, no need for a vaccine or any need for the public health interventions. You too. But it seems that everyone in MAHA thinks there was a pandemic and that public health interventions were required. And most/all were vaccinated. So we have a problem. But given these circumstances I'm not prepared to offer my support. MAHA is merely putting lipstick on a pig.
I agree re fundamental human rights.
I agree that if we could see-why couldn't/ won't they.
I agree re public health interventions--dangerously close to WHO
I am a bit more sanguine--wait and see--sadly the other side have too much money/power and whether I support is neither here nor there. I think they have better values than the previous bunch-but as I have said-the finance and the philosophy are still in place ,as are many of the people. I have just finished a 3 part series on the evidence against lockdowns and masks and what was or should have been known at the time. The UK is still attached to WHO and that is, for me, the biggest threat--the WHO Pandemic treaty in the hands of our politicians.....