Monthly Archives: April 2021

Spreading Disinformation

Posted on by
Reply

Jay Bhattacharya, in his Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, (mostly) correctly called out and decried YouTube for censoring and spiking a public-policy roundtable hosted by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) and in which Bhattacharya had participated.

Among other things discussed by the participants was the wisdom of requiring children to wear masks in the face of the Wuhan Virus situation. The panel said the requirement was foolish and counterproductive, and this was too much for the Know Betters. YouTube

removed the video “because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

Bhattacharya, though, in his op-ed cited study after study supporting the panel’s position: requiring children to wear masks is deeply suboptimal, and is so across a wide range of dimensions.

Never mind.

Never mind that the panelists, in addition to Bhattacharya, who is a physician, economist, and Stanford Medical School professor, consisted of Sunetra Gupta, infectious disease epidemiologist and epidemiology professor at Oxford; Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital; and Scott Atlas, radiologist, health care policy advisor, and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. They’re only experts; they know nothing.

Their position is contrary to The Narrative. How dare anyone contradict Settled Narrative.

I said above “‘mostly’ correctly called out…YouTube” because YouTube is wholly owned by Google, and Google is wholly owned by Alphabet. The latter two are run by Sundar Pichai.

It is, in fact, Alphabet and Sundar Pichai who are peddling disinformation under the guise of preventing “misinformation,” using YouTube as the vehicle for their machination.

Once again, Pichai is pushing the Left’s Newspeak dictionary and doing so at the direct and deliberate expense of objective discourse.

This also is a prima facie case for treating Alphabet, et al., as public accommodations—or as common carriers—and limiting their ability to discriminate or to censor.

A Thought on the J&J Vaccine

Posted on by
Reply

A couple of nuggets in a Tuesday Wall Street Journal editorial prompt this in my pea brain. The editorial itself concerns [t]he issue [of] how best to address public anxiety over rare blood clots seemingly associated with the J&J anti-Wuhan Virus vaccine.

The nuggets are these:

six US cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) [in] 6.8 million who have received J&J’s vaccine

and

This particular brain blood clot is extremely rare in the general population—five individuals per million per year….

The J&J association—if it is more than coincidence—works out to less than one incident of this particular brain blood clot per million getting the J&J vaccine, if my third-grade arithmetic is any good.

The question that occurs to me (and that I’ve seen no evidence is being considered) is whether the J&J vaccine has the happy side effect of providing a measure of protection against this already extremely rare type of clot.

A bonus question from my pea brain. The clots seemingly associated with the J&J vaccine have all occurred in women in the age range of 18 to 48. Assuming the clot-vaccine association is more than coincidence, is there something in the metabolism of women, or in some other factor particular to women, that leaves them susceptible to the clot, even if less so than the general population for having had the vaccine? Alternatively, is there something in the metabolism of men, or in some other factor particular to men, that makes them proof against the clot for having had the vaccine?

Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

It’s especially dangerous in the face of People’s Republic of China aggression. Yet it’s the position of Canada’s Justin Trudeau government. Don’t angrify the bully.

The Halifax Security Forum is a congress of international security experts:

…sponsored by NATO [and by the Canadian government, the latter especially with money], draws scores of powerful military and civilian leaders. Previous speakers have included then-US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; Admiral Phil Davidson, the commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command; Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan; and officials from a host of other countries, including Israel, Estonia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Poland and Japan.

And

The forum’s website states it is “devoted to strengthening strategic cooperation among democratic nations.”

But it seems that Trudeau and his coterie aren’t that devoted.

The Forum had planned on awarding its John McCain Prize to the Republic of China’s President, Tsai Ing-wen for standing strong against China’s relentless pressure. Its two prior recipients were the people of Lesbos, Greece, for their efforts to save refugees; the second, in 2019, went to the citizen protesters in Hong Kong.

But the President of the RoC apparently is a bridge too far, requiring more courage to support than Trudeau seems able to muster.

When Canadian officials learned of the forum’s plans, they made it clear that if organizers gave the honor to Tsai, the Canadian government would pull support—and funding—from HFX.

This is not a proper government for the nation whose people helped face down tyranny in world wars of the past and who helped send a later tyranny, the USSR, into the garbage can of history.

Sadly, the Forum now seems to be dithering in the face of Trudeau’s pro-PRC threats.

Kancel Kulture and Racism

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a textbook example of the intersectionality of kanceling and racism.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke last week against the idea of tampering with the Supreme Court’s makeup or structure.

To make those whose initial instincts may favor important structural change, or other similar institutional changes, such as forms of court packing, think long and hard before they embody those changes in law.
If the public sees judges as politicians in robes, its confidence in the courts and in the rule of law can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a check on other branches.

Cue the Left’s kancel outrage.

MSNBC commentator Mehdi Hasan:

Where on Earth has he been over the past two decades as the Supreme Court delivered one partisan decision after another? Napping?

And the intersection with the Left’s racism: Demand Justice immediately began an online petition campaign entitled “Retire, Breyer” that urged the justice to step down so an [sic] black woman could be appointed.

Demand Justice‘s naked racism—and sexism—is blatant in their petition:

We have waited long enough for a Black woman Supreme Court justice.

The crowd made it even more publicly and explicitly racist, with that large dollop of sexism intersected in.

We need to start the process of confirming a Black woman justice now. Sign the petition to tell Justice Breyer: Put the country first. Don’t risk your legacy to an uncertain political future. Retire now.

Because the primary criteria for a Supreme Court Justice is his race and sex. His knowledge and experience with American law and our Constitution, his commitment to adhere faithfully to the text of our Constitution and the laws that are brought before him…just don’t matter.

In Which the Court Got It Right

Posted on by
Reply

…and the 9th Circuit Court messed it up again. This case (Ritesh Tandon, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, et al.) involves California Governor Gavin Newsom’s (D) restrictions on church gatherings against his more permissive approval of bar, salon, etc gatherings [emphasis added].

This is the fifth time the Court has summarily rejected the Ninth Circuit’s analysis of California’s COVID restrictions on religious exercise.  See Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2020); South Bay, 592 U. S. ___; Gish v. Newsom, 592 U. S. ___ (2021); Gateway City, 592 U. S. ___. It is unsurprising that such litigants are entitled to relief. California’s Blueprint System contains myriad exceptions and accommodations for comparable activities, thus requiring the application of strict scrutiny. And historically, strict scrutiny requires the State to further “interests of the highest order” by means “narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye,Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). That standard “is not watered down”; it “really means what it says.” Ibid. (quotation altered).

Hear, hear.

The Tandon group will be able to hold their religious gatherings unfettered by Newsom or his government while the basic case wends its way on through the 9th Circuit. And likely through the Supreme Court for final adjudication.

The ruling can be seen here.