BMJ rebuked over coverage of US gov COVID report that revealed we were right about nearly everything

Be better, BMJ. Source.

Late last year, while Biden was still (apparently) the President, the US government put out a report that somehow didn’t get much attention, a report that vindicated just about every thought we ‘COVID skeptics’ had about the scamdemic. Nothing too major, just that the lockdowns, school closures, face mask mandates, and vaccine mandates all didn’t help, and probably did more harm than good; the worth of the jabs was very much exaggerated; there was hella corruption involved; oh, and the virus probably leaked from a Chinese lab. Source.

Okay then.

Wait, what?! This is absolutely freaking huge, and will no doubt feature in many a lawsuit going forward (hi there!), how wasn’t this on the front page for every news outlet, all day, every day, for months? Russiagate dominated the news during President Trump’s first term, for years, and that was total bullshit. One reason why this didn’t get much public attention is how it has been covered by the media and the medical journals. I’ll have more to say on the report and its coverage soon, and it does align nicely with human rights organisations finally acknowledging our rights were infringed, but for now I’ll focus on how the BMJ - one of the world’s top medical journals - reported on it. Source. Their coverage led to a rebuke (by yours truly) which they sportingly published, though only as a ‘rapid’ response, and after several months of waiting. Source. Highlights:

• Writing for the News section of the BMJ, Dyer begins by claiming that Democrats and Republicans published “competing reports”. This is misinformation, potentially outright disinformation. There is one offical report put out by the subcommittee. Bipartisan. Passed unanimously. And effectively critical of the policies of both parties. If some of the Democrats decided to put together a much smaller, obviously partisan, and unofficial report, goody for them. You would think one of the top medical journals could get this basic fact right… Oh, and how dare they question the government! What are they, COnSPiRacY tHeoRisTs?!

• They state that there was “no new evidence” for the lab leak hypothesis, but there was, it just wasn’t ‘direct evidence’. Dyer notes that the Democrats (via the non-official, and actually partisan, report) wonder if a hybrid scenario could be true. I note that is quite pointless as a hybrid scenario still involves a lab leak, and I remind everyone that this is all a big change from the situation early on where even thinking of a potential lab leak would see your reputation destroyed.

• All the stuff mentioned above about how the report vindicates so many of our once unpopular opinions, which is supported by much scientific evidence, some even published/mentioned in the BMJ, is seemingly brushed off by Dyer who briefly mentions this under the heading “Politicised investigations”. Classy. They make no attempt to engage with or even mention the evidence, like the Cochrane study discussing face masks, the Johns Hopkins study on lockdowns, or the JECP4 articles on the effectiveness and safety of the jabs likely being very much exaggerated.

• The claim that the CIA found the question over COVID’s origins “unanswerable” aged very poorly, as very soon after the “CIA acknowledged that the lab leak hypothesis is the more likely one”.

• Reminding the BMJ of the infamous comment about COVID’s “fatality rate [being] on par with Ebola”, I hope going forward that the fine journal will report on such matters “with due care”.

Okay then.

Extra: I’ll have much more to say on the US government report and its coverage very soon, just waiting on a few things, like potential publishing in a journal, with an awesome co-author you might know.