Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Rachel Marsden: Why is so much of the debate around COVID-19 being stifled?
0 Comments
Rachel Marsden: Why is so much of the debate around COVID-19 being stifled?

Rachel Marsden: Why is so much of the debate around COVID-19 being stifled?

  • 0
Rachel Marsden

Rachel Marsden

PARIS — It has been 18 months since the first COVID-19 lockdowns in March 2020. Have we flattened the curve yet? Recall that it was supposed to be just a few weeks of sacrifice before our lives could go back to normal.

The “waves” of “cases” ebb and flow, and we’re still being fed a COVID-19 narrative that’s reinforced by gatekeeping at every level. Mainstream journalists are self-censoring, failing to address issues that go against establishment conventional wisdom. Social media platforms either remove or label as “misinformation” anything that doesn’t fit the accepted narrative. That narrative itself has been formed with little transparency around the opaque interests that play a role in shaping it.

The narrative is simple. You’re a defenseless blank slate. There’s a virus circulating. If you encounter it, you’re going to end up in a hospital bed. See these “case numbers”? Notice how they’re going up? I mean, sure, they may go down again, but eventually they’ll go back up.

If it seems as if we’re locked in a bad Hollywood movie, it’s because we kind of are with this stage-managed narrative. To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry: “COVID, the most powerful virus in the world, and would blow your head clean off. You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”

Into all of this comes the almighty savior: the jab. There are still a lot of questions about the novel science used in its creation, but people with legitimate concerns are branded anti-science cranks or conspiracy theorists rather than critically thinking individuals who’ve seen enough government-peddled lies to possess a healthy distrust of official narratives (particularly since the COVID-19 narrative is constantly changing).

Sure, we can chalk it up to uncertainty over how things might evolve. But there seems to be a disconnect between the actual science and what the experts are talking about. At the very least, there’s a lot of cherry-picking going on.

A glaring example of information bias was on CNN last week when Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke with the network’s resident doctor, Sanjay Gupta.

“There was a study that came out of Israel about natural immunity,” Gupta said. “And basically, the headline was that natural immunity provides a lot of protection, even better than the vaccines alone. What are people to make of that? So, as we talk about vaccine mandates ... I get calls all the time, people say, ‘I have already had COVID. I’m protected. And now the study says maybe even more protected than [with] the vaccine alone. Should they also get the vaccine? How do you make the case to them?”

Replied Fauci: “You know, that’s a really good point, Sanjay. I don’t have a really firm answer for you on that. That’s something that we’re going to have to discuss regarding the durability of the response. The one thing the paper from Israel didn’t tell you is whether or not as high as the protection is with natural infection. What’s the durability compared to the durability of a vaccine?”

About the only person publicly examining the long-term antibody values of vaccinated people vs. those with acquired immunity is Dr. Shawn Carbonell, who’s literally analyzing bodily fluids on the video sharing site TikTok. Fauci and his cohorts have had ample time to provide us with the actual numbers derived from scientific studies. (My own antibody levels after having COVID haven’t budged in the six months since I first took an antibody test.) Are study results being kept out of the public eye because the science could undermine the vaccine mandates and jab passports being rolled out worldwide?

There’s other information being left out of the discussion, too. How about the whole notion of prevention? I was infected and barely noticed. What role did my lifestyle play in that favorable outcome? Could daily doses of vitamin D, zinc and multivitamins — or that I swim four miles a day — have played a role in my benign experience with the virus?

How about the daily saltwater sinus rinse that I’ve used every day for the past several years to flush out potential respiratory viruses? Could that have played a role in my milder case? In August 2020, the International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology noted: “Evidences supported the efficacy role of antimicrobial rinses against the enveloped viruses including the human coronavirus recently identified.” Why was that scientific study of a low-cost, no-risk measure not trumpeted worldwide?

Until the gatekeepers start broadening the debate to include all scientific knowledge rather than what they’ve cherry-picked, they’re responsible for fostering warranted skepticism about the COVID-19 narratives and measures being hard-peddled to the public.

Marsden writes for Tribune Content Agency and hosts a French-language program on Sputnik France: www.rachelmarsden.com.

0 Comments

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alerts

Badger Sports

Breaking News

Crime

Politics