More COVID… and sources to read that aren’t trying to scare you to death

Another day, another COVID-19 variant, more fear. Here's some sources to contrast the prevailing fear metanarrative.

Thanks so much for stopping by! If you enjoy the content, please subscribe to the RSS feed for more. Feel free to leave comments. Your participation enriches the blog!

The headlines in various MSM outlets shrilly screamed, “Another COVID mutation! It’s going to kill us all!” Or something like that. If you get your news from CNN or Fox, you’ll be headed back into your bunker and duct-taping your mouth and nose instead of just masking.

I’m not afraid, and I’m not worried. I’m also not surprised. For reasons why, you can visit my other posts on COVID.

I want to commend a few sources for your perusal. They are independent journalists (yes, they exist). They’ve helped provide alternative views and interpretations of information and data along the way (20 months of way) that have helped me process and see a different perspective than what I’ve perceived as a full-court press on sanity and double doses of hysteria by political leaders, politically-appointed bureaucrats in our health agencies and even politically-affiliated academics and others (did you know that upwards of 90% of “experts” lean toward one party?).

Also along the way, it’s been disheartening to interact with people who I otherwise respect and appreciate but who on this one issue of COVID seem to energetically resist reading and digesting other viewpoints and interpretations. This is not how “science” is done. You don’t shoot the messenger. Censorship of alternative views and name-calling or labelling people who disagree as conspiracy theorists or such are not expressions of considered wisdom. These expressions are more like bullying and schoolyard rivalry than intelligent discourse.

Three sources:

  1. Alex Berensen. “A former New York Times reporter and the author of 13 novels, two non-fiction books, and the Unreported Truths booklets. His third non-fiction book, PANDEMIA, on the coronavirus and our response to it, will be published on Nov. 30.” Berensen had a massive Twitter following before he was banned/censored. Of all the people I’ve followed, I was impressed with his communication with Twitter itself, seeking to ensure that he was not banned. They did it anyway. He now has a highly successful newsletter on Substack (known as a “stack”) called Unreported Truths.
  2. Jordan Schachtel. “Jordan Schachtel is an investigative journalist and foreign policy analyst based in Washington, D.C.” His stack is called The Dossier, and he also has a podcast.
  3. Dr. Martin Kulldroff. “A professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. An epidemiologist, biostatistician, and scientific director at the newly formed Brownstone Institute. He has spent the last two decades working on infectious disease outbreak detection and monitoring.”
  4. Kyle Becker. “Kyle is an independent journalist and writer of Becker News. He was a writer and producer for Fox News’ #1 cable primetime show Hannity. He is a veteran of award-winning digital news startup Independent Journal Review.”
  5. Kanekoa the Great. “A newsletter spreading the truth about COVID-19 and current events.” I have no idea who this person is, but they also have been on top of COVID research, stats and information. I’ve actually interacted with them on a messaging level for clarification and found them to be friendly, helpful and responsive. This is one source I’d say treat with caution/discernment.

As with any source recommendation, I don’t endorse; I simply encourage you to read, discern and discuss. 

Hit Pieces

One consistent and disturbing trend is the prevalence of hit pieces being done on independent journalists and others seeking to get information out about COVID, vaccines, and treatment. Some would say they’re trying to get out good news (and there’s so much of it in regard to COVID). But the MSM and other information gatekeepers are found of labelling and name-calling. You’ll see everything from accusations of “misinformation” (what is that, anyway? Is it just dissenting viewpoints?) to people being labeled as “conspiracy theorists.” As an extra thump on someone’s reputation, if you can connect them with being a Donald Trump supporter/voter, that apparently also means they can’t think scientifically.

As an example, one person I have read on occasion is Steve Kirsch. I didn’t recommend him above, because he’s a bit of a wild card. However, he’s been consistent at presenting information that needs to be considered in this only-one-viewpoint-matters world we live in. You need to read him with discernment (which is actually what I’d say about any source – whether mainstream or independent; let’s think, people!). However, the MIT Technological Review decided to do this extensive hit piece on him.

Interestingly enough, the writer admits deep into the article the following:

It is not unusual to be wary of developing science, or wrong to be skeptical of pharmaceutical companies. These huge businesses do often prioritize profits over human health: in 2009, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion settlement over kickbacks and fraudulent marketing, including a $1.3 billion felony fine.

In 2013, Johnson & Johnson paid $2.2 billion for its own kickback and fraud scandal, including a specific $400 million fine for its subsidiary Janssen, which manufactures the covid vaccine. The US government accused Janssen of improperly promoting the antipsychotic drug Risperdal to dementia patients despite the drug increasing deaths in the elderly. The man who ran Risperdal sales, Alex Gorsky, is now CEO of Johnson & Johnson.

Kirsch responded to the piece above and another hit piece on him in this article. It’s well worth the read just to see how much work is required to respond to labels, name-calling and character aspersions.

Kirsch is only one example. Anyone who speaks out about COVID, big pharma corruption, or questions the new science must deal with the swift, inundating and unfair tsunami of criticism, cancelers, and the army of Karens out there waiting to pounce on anyone who dares to think unapproved thoughts.

Substack

Many of the sources above have been banned on other platforms and have transitioned to a newsletter/blog format at Substack. If you’ve not heard of Substack before, it’s a thing. Don’t be turned off independent journalists and researchers moving to this paid subscription format. How else are they going to earn income? Some of their posts are so deep, well-resourced and researched that they deserve to be paid. Unlike what passes as “journalism” in many MSM venues today, they are doing the heavy lifting and finding information that the rest of us don’t have time for. I’m even considering starting a stack for subscriber-based posts.

Hope these sources have a fuller perspective of what’s going on out there related to COVID. At the very least, it will help you see things from the other side and realize no one has a tin foil hat on. They are simply looking at the data and real-world experiences and asking valid questions about how the science is being interpreted.

0 0 votes
Post Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest


2 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] More COVID… and sources to read that aren’t trying to scare you to death (December 2) Another day, another COVID-19 variant, more fear. This post offered some sources that I’ve been following, mostly independent journalists, that encourage and contrast the prevailing metanarrative of fear. […]

trackback

[…] and question the narrative that was shoved down our throats, you might start with my entry here: More COVID… and sources to read that aren’t trying to scare you to death. This is all especially relevant after the #TwitterFiles drop about COVID […]

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x