The Science vs. The Stupid

“Trust the science.” It’s a phrase that has been uttered a lot in the last year.  In fact, the media coverage of Covid and vaccines can best be summarized as “The Science vs. the Stupid.” 

As an Ivy League Communications grad who has worked in news, both in front of and behind the camera, I’m disappointed and embarrassed by this reductionist narrative that has been created and upheld by the media.

The mechanism for creating this compelling “science vs. stupid” framework has been crafted through the use of Straw Man arguments.  Straw man arguments rely on reframing a narrative to suit one’s goal.  So instead of addressing the real issues, the media creates a more ridiculous issue to discuss (the straw man) that’s easy to refute, thus making the issue look stupid.

A recent New York Times headline reads: “New York Hospitals Face Possible Mass Firings as Workers Spurn Vaccines.”  Ok, that’s an interesting title, and an article that could be an interesting read.  We have a situation where thousands of healthcare professionals are at risk of losing their careers because they don’t want to take an injection.  An obvious question is, why are thousands in the medical industry unwilling to comply? 

The governor is featured in the article, various officials are quoted and spoken to, but only one nurse is quoted in the article explaining that medical workers deserve a choice, saying: “Health care workers deserve the same medical autonomy [as patients] to make those decisions.”  That’s the full extent of the reasoning given in the article.  Out of thousands of healthcare professionals at risk of losing their jobs, that’s the best explanation that is offered?  Or rather, that’s the best the Times wants to do? 

Most medical professionals, even technicians and aides, spend years and thousands of dollars to prepare themselves for a job in the industry.  And under threat of being fired, in a state where other hospitals have the same requirements, forgoing a jab has huge implications for their future employability.  Yet we’re supposed to accept that all of these thousands of people are essentially just pro-choice and taking a philosophical stance?

Of course I believe these professionals know they deserve a choice, but this hesitancy goes deeper than just: “Health care workers deserve medical autonomy.” Thus, the New York Times completely avoids the real issues at hand.

Instead of discussing the real reasons why thousands are risking their careers, the Times includes a line about one employee who prefers to rely on spirituality, which we know many people find to be counter to science, thus feeding into the “science vs. stupid” narrative. The article reads: “One plaintiff […] is described in court papers as a Christian Scientist who opposes all vaccines and believes in the healing power of prayer.” 

One conversation not being discussed in this article, or in other news outlets, is that a large number of medical doctors and PhD scientists and researchers have serious medical concerns about the safety of the shots which are on the market.

On September 17th, the FDA live-streamed a committee meeting to discuss boosters and vaccine safety.  The New York Times headline read: “The F.D.A.’s day of lively debate revealed key question about the evidence on boosters.”  The headline is actually an understatement.  A better and more accurate headline would have been, “Bombshell Revelations Question Vaccine Safety and Efficacy.”  But let’s get into what actually took place in the meeting.

I sat through 5 of the 8 hours of this meeting in order to know what was discussed and to accurately assess the media’s coverage of it.  And I’m glad I did, because although most of it was pretty boring, the 4th-5th hour was mind-blowing.  

Numerous doctors discussed many very concerning statistics and results that have been observed in vaccinated individuals.  The concerns about heart health had been mentioned much earlier in the session, but doctors and health professionals discussed evidence that the vaccines weaken the immune system in the long term, that boosters can create the variants, and even that the vaccine kills more people than it saves.  Say what?  The vaccine kills more people than it saves?  How is that not a headline?  How is that claim not being investigated further by every major news outlet?

But that wasn’t the end of the information that was presented.  One speaker discussed a girl who was paralyzed for life after receiving the Pfizer vaccine during the clinical trials but was removed from the data.  Why? That’s a huge question.  Is anyone in the media discussing this?  Another doctor references Nicki Minaj and says that reproductive issues including inflammation in the sex organs have been observed in animal trials.  Yet another doctor went on to say that the clinical trials that led to the vaccines being approved didn’t show any data on infection, rather just protection against severe disease.

Is that accurate?  Are any news outlets going to dig into that question? Why is the mainstream media remaining completely quiet on all of these enormous and potentially detrimental claims?  

This last claim is perhaps the most damning.  If the vaccines were never proven to prevent infection or transmission of disease, how can they even be classified as “vaccines?”  If the injections help to prevent the onset of severe disease, that would mean that the shots are symptom mitigators, not vaccines.  Without preventing infection, or preventing transmission, these shots should never have been classified as vaccinations.

But let’s get back to the FDA hearing and the many damning statements that were made.  Instead of investigating or researching the many claims presented during the FDA hearing, the media propped up their straw men.  This is from the Times: “Among the details that surfaced during the lively debate: Israel and the United States define severe illness differently.” 

Here’s the dangerous thing about straw man arguments: they’re not lies.  But they obfuscate the truth. Sure, maybe Israel and the US define “severe” differently, but who cares in the greater context of what was discussed?  You just read about the many other issues that were raised during the meeting.  Who on earth cares about the Times’ straw man over these much more shocking claims?  But by using this approach, they give the impression that they’re giving critical coverage when they are not.  

A trite article is written, that gives the illusion that it’s going to tell you about the dramatic day of testimony, but delivers a nothing burger.  A trusting person would believe that they’ve received an accurate representation of the event, when they haven’t. Not by a long shot.

I don’t say this to pick on the Times or to single out any one purveyor.  In fact, the mainstream media in general is complicit and has been doing the same thing.  

Another perhaps even more frightening revelation in the FDA hearing is that in some areas, doctors who warn patients about the potential risks of jabs and boosters can have their medical licenses revoked.  This is outrageous and completely flies in the face of informed consent. Doctors must be free to inform and treat clients as they see fit.  If they are unable to do that, then patients will essentially just be interfacing with pharmaceutical sales reps.

Let’s move away from the FDA hearing and look at more straw man arguments.  Let’s choose a divisive one: the drug and controversial Covid treatment Ivermectin.

Mainstream news outlets ranging from The Guardian to Newsweek and Vanity Fair have all had headlines labeling ivermectin as a horse medication.

Let’s start with the first straw man argument about ivermectin that is designed to make people look stupid: it’s for horses.  

Ivermectin can indeed be given to horses, just like Aspirin, Tylenol, antibiotics and just about every other medicine that’s routinely given to humans.  But to characterize those medications as being for horses is ridiculous.  The fact that Ivermectin is routinely prescribed to humans is ignored, because the goal is to make people look stupid.

I was prescribed Ivermectin after returning from a trip to India with a stomach bug.  Last I checked, I’m not a horse. The horse narrative could be funny, if it weren’t actually intentionally distorting the truth.

In an MSN article about ivermectin, the FDA was quoted as saying: “Taking large doses of this drug is dangerous and can cause serious harm.”  Can you spot the straw man strategy here?  Can you see how the truth is being distorted?

The key phrase is: “large doses.”  Who is talking about large doses?  The question is whether ivermectin is effective in treating Covid, yet the discussion has been subtly shifted.  Most medications in large doses are dangerous and can cause serious harm.  

Let’s move the conversation away from Ivermectin and onto something more benign to examine what’s happening here.

Imagine that experts are talking about dehydration.  And some are wondering if water should be added to increase hydration levels.  Now imagine that the response is that water in very high doses can be fatal.  Ok… That’s true.  Drinking liters of water in a short span of time could be dangerous.  But that’s not really what anyone is talking about.

The reality is that ivermectin, taken at appropriate doses as prescribed by a doctor, is very safe.  And note, that’s not my opinion. That’s what the data shows after four decades of being widely distributed all over the world.

Now, is ivermectin effective at treating Covid?  I have no idea, I’m not a doctor.  What I’m saying is that the media coverage on ivermectin is intentionally misleading, and maintains the narrative that anyone who does not do what government representatives and pharmaceutical companies recommend is stupid.

You might think that if ivermectin were effective, the pharmaceutical companies would be the first to champion it.  But here’s the thing: ivermectin is an old drug.  That means it’s off-patent and can be produced by any manufacturer under a generic label. So basically, ivermectin is cheap and its manufacture can’t be controlled.  Does that influence why the pharma companies and the politicians don’t support it?  I don’t know.  But the coordinated media and government effort to slander this drug is odd to say the least.

So what can we do?  What can anyone do?  How can we know if we’re being told the truth?  My answer may not be comforting, but it will be empowering.

The answer is to realize that for some unknown reason, the media is not showing the full picture when it comes to Covid reporting.  Instead of digging into details and asking real questions, the mainstream media is acting as a mouth-piece for the administration and for the pharmaceutical companies.  That awareness is big step in freeing yourself from the onslaught of misinformation that is regularly peddled in the news. People are being gaslit into believing that anything not in the mainstream media is misinformation.

A recent New York Times article had the headline: “Covid Vaccine Prompts Strong Immune Response in Younger Children, Pfizer Says.” Look at that headline!  The media is exposing itself.  This is a marketing campaign under the cloak of news. This is essentially a public relations article disguised as news.  I hope they don’t change the title after people start to notice.

I don’t know who these media employees are serving through these reports.  But I know one thing for a fact: they’re not serving the public.  People want to know the truth.  People want research.  They want facts that have been researched and that they can trust.  We don’t want press releases.

For too long, we’ve let the fox guard the hen house.  And the foxes are the pharmaceutical companies who as a rule don’t have a good track record when it comes to safety and honesty.

So again, what to do? There are 3 things to do:

1. Empower yourself.  Look into these topics for yourself.  You can start by watching the September 17th FDA hearing.  It’s easy to find - it’s right on the FDA’s YouTube channel. The 4-hour mark starts some really interesting conversations.  You can start there.  Listen to the testimony and presentations from those doctors and scientists. 

2. Demand better from your news outlets.  Call and email the news organizations that you watch or read.  Ask why they’re not reporting on what’s really going on.  Demand that they invite the doctors and researchers from the FDA’s hearings onto their shows.  Demand that news outlets stop suppressing information that’s damaging to the pharmaceutical companies.

3. Demand that everyone reveal their conflicts of interest. All news outlets should have to say how much money they receive from big pharma companies. In any article or TV report, everyone should have to mention three things: 1. How much money they personally receive from big pharma, 2. how much their company receives from big pharma and 3. any relationships or prior employment that could create a conflict of interest.  This is vital information. 

We currently live in a society where Instagram influencers with 10,000 followers are required to have more transparency than lawmakers and those in the medical field.  If someone posts a story or image on Instagram featuring shampoo, and that person is being paid a cut from the shampoo company, that influencer is required to disclose that relationship.

By contrast, when people who are featured on the news promote medications, we have no way of knowing if there is money changing hands, thus creating a financial conflict of interest. So when the Times reports on vaccines, we need context. How much money does the reporter receive from big pharma (likely 0), but also how much does the Times and its parent company receive in advertising dollars (a lot more than 0)? We also want to know if that reporter has ever worked for a pharmaceutical company or has a close personal relationship with someone in the pharmaceutical industry.  The fact that people and organizations directly profit from pharmaceutical companies doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to report on them, but that context should be included for the sake of transparency.

The same standard should also apply for all government and medical officials who are featured in the news.  When governors are interviewed, how much do they receive in campaign contributions from big pharma?  Without this information, we’re not receiving the full picture, and we’re holding our politicians to a lower standard than our run-of-the-mill social media influencer.

But all is not lost. Together, if we demand it, we can have a more transparent and honest media landscape.