The Lancet bows down to the COVID cult
As a postscript to the recent article by Emily Oster in the Atlantic, the COVID Cult is still at it, with no signs of letting up. Oster asked for pandemic amnesty for authoritarian leaders and their eager supporters during “The COVID Years,” but she never actually apologized. We expect such behavior from the Atlantic, a publication no longer taken seriously by anyone but the most dedicated true-believer leftist.
We don’t, however, expect that sort of intellectual dishonesty from one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, but evidently the Lancet is now stooping down to their level.
After two years of the mRNA shots, with the evidence mounting daily that they are neither safe nor effective (search for athletes dropping on the field or teens having heart attacks), how is it that those who insisted that we follow the science still refuse to actually follow the science?
They can’t admit that they were wrong, and they’re still doubling down on the lies! A recently published study in the Lancet -- “Protection from previous natural infection compared with mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 in Qatar: A retrospective cohort study” compared the level of protection against reinfection with COVID-19 conveyed from previous COVID infection to the protection conveyed by the vaccines.
The results clearly found that previous infection provided more protection almost two-to-one compared to the vaccines. They also found that the protection offered by the vaccines waned in three months’ time, versus that from previous infection, which was still present eight months later. Moreover, they opined that it was likely that the protection offered by the vaccines was probably inflated due to the likelihood that many in the vaccinated cohort may have had a previous COVID-19 infection but were never tested for it, which didn’t disqualify them from the study. In other words, some of the protection they had may have been from previous infection and not the vaccine.
Despite their very clear findings, in the “interpretations” section of the paper they pay tribute to the vaccine narrative:
“Previous natural infection was associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination. Vaccination remains the safest and most optimal tool for protecting against infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation and death, irrespective of previous infection status.” (Italics added)
They directly contradict themselves and ignore the findings from a decent attempt at actual science… to support the vaccine narrative. Unbelievable! First, they firmly establish that previous infection offers better protection. The results are unambiguous. Then they simply say, “Nah… the vaccines are still better.” They must think we’re all too stupid or lazy to read or understand the paper!
Second, the Lancet is one of the most respected (at least for now) scientific journals in the world; how could they have published such a glaring misstatement? These are supposed to be the Gatekeepers of Science. Did they miss it? Did they not read it? I’m not a scientist, yet I was able to spot this contradiction in minutes.
Even after all we’ve learned and all we’ve been through, those who were wrong at nearly every turn simply cannot stop furthering the lies. I say to Ms. Oster and the Lancet, “I don’t think so. Do better.”
Image: The Lancet