Twitter Suspends Science Writer After He Posts Results Of Pfizer Clinical Test

Twitter LogoJust yesterday, we discussed the censoring of a commentator by Twitter for merely expressing an opinion over the need for a “pause” on any federal mandates on Covid-19 as new research is studied. Now, a former New York Times science reporter, Alex Berenson, has been suspended for simply citing the results from a clinical trial by Pfizer and raising questions over any vaccine mandate. In the meantime, the White House accused both the Washington Post and New York Times of irresponsible reporting on Covid, but surprisingly Twitter has not suspended those accounts.  It is the license of the censor.  Twitter is unwilling to let people read or discuss viewpoints that it disagrees with as a corporation. Many on the left, however, have embraced the concept of corporate speech and censorship. It turns out that the problem with censorship for many was the failure to censor views that they opposed. With the “right” censors at work, the free speech concerns have been set aside.

I have little ability to judge the science on such questions. Moreover, I was eager to be vaccinated as was my entire family. I would get the vaccination today with equal enthusiasm. However, I welcome the debate for data. Yet, rather than answer such critics and refute their arguments, many people focus on silencing anyone with dissenting viewpoints like Berenson.

Berenson has been effectively confined to Substack by Big Tech due to his discussing dissenting views on the science surrounding Covid-19. His latest offense against Big Tech came when he posted the results published by Pfizer of its own clinical data. He claimed that the research showed little difference in mortality between those in the trial with a vaccine and those given a placebo.

 

In the meantime, the White House sent out an all caps condemnation for “completely irresponsible” reporting on the infliction of vaccinated people according to another study.

Ben Wakana, deputy director of strategic communications and engagement for the White House, blasted the Washington Post over its headline about a study of a COVID-19 outbreak in Provincetown, Massachusetts on July 4th. The Post tweet read “Vaccinated people made up three-quarters of those infected in a massive Massachusetts covid-19 outbreak, pivotal CDC study finds.” Wakana responded “Completely irresponsible,. 3 days ago the CDC made clear that vaccinated individuals represent a VERY SMALL amount of transmission occurring around the country. Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths continue to be among the unvaccinated. Unreal to not put that in context.”  

Wakana addressed the same issue with  a New York Times tweet stating “Breaking News: The Delta variant is as contagious as chickenpox and may be spread by vaccinated people as easily as the unvaccinated, an internal C.D.C. report said.” That sent Wakana into all caps: “VACCINATED PEOPLE DO NOT TRANSMIT THE VIRUS AT THE SAME RATE AS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE AND IF YOU FAIL TO INCLUDE THAT CONTEXT YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.”

Now all three posters (Berenson, The Post, and The Times) were citing studies and accused of not putting them into context. However, only Berenson was suspended.

Obviously, none of these posters should be suspended and Twitter should not be enforcing one of the largest censorship programs in history. However, the silence of free speech supports, academics, and journalists to this hypocrisy is deafening.

The rise of corporate censors has combined with a heavily pro-Biden media to create the fear of a de facto state media that controls information due to a shared ideology rather than state coercion.  That concern has been magnified by demands from Democratic leaders for increased censorship, including censoring political speech, and now word that the Biden Administration has routinely been flagging material to be censored by Facebook.

This is why I have described myself as an Internet Originalist:

The alternative is “internet originalism” — no censorship. If social media companies returned to their original roles, there would be no slippery slope of political bias or opportunism; they would assume the same status as telephone companies. We do not need companies to protect us from harmful or “misleading” thoughts. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not approved speech.

If Pelosi demanded that Verizon or Sprint interrupt calls to stop people saying false or misleading things, the public would be outraged. Twitter serves the same communicative function between consenting parties; it simply allows thousands of people to participate in such digital exchanges. Those people do not sign up to exchange thoughts only to have Dorsey or some other internet overlord monitor their conversations and “protect” them from errant or harmful thoughts.

 

146 thoughts on “Twitter Suspends Science Writer After He Posts Results Of Pfizer Clinical Test”

  1. “In the empire of lies, truth is treason.” George Orwell imagined Jack Dorsey even before Jack crawled out from under Beijing’s rock.

    Jack does not believe in patriotism or borders and supports anything that undermines all that. Instead, Jack believes he belongs to an international super-state: a class of interlocking corporate boards and international agencies whose control of trade and communications should allow them to dictate terms to outmoded nation states and other deplorables.

    In short, Jack is a globalist. The trendy thinking among globalists is basically whatever Beijing tells them to think, and Beijing is run by corporate Marxists. The Frankenstein of corporate Marxism was sown together by Beijing, and it’s being stitched onto globalist thinking for two reasons: because self-absorbed, pseudo-intellectual quacks like Jack really believe it (his Marxist professor told him so) and because Beijing is single-minded in how it manipulates the world through trade.

    So basically, globalists are not just corporate Marxists but Beijing’s little sock puppets. The sock puppets can indulge in the conceit that they are running things, but at the end of the day, somebody else’s hand is firmly up their ass.

    And specifically how does Jack unwittingly serve Beijing’s interests? By fomenting the propaganda that America is systemically racist. Thus, nobody talks about Beijing’s systemic persecution of the Uighurs. How else? By wildly exaggerating about police brutality in America. Thus, nobody talks about blatant police brutality in Hong Kong. I could go on.

    And how does Jack make all this work? By brazen, self-serving censorship. Thank God we have one honest law professor to speak truth to power.

      1. Thanks, Allen. Maybe someday they’ll ship us to the same gulag and we’ll finally get to meet 🙂

        1. The sad thing, Diogenes, is that your thought becomes more likely as the left proceeds in abolishing civil liberties. We are moving in the direction of China and the Borg. My family has a lot of experience with the results of leftism. It’s all bad.

      2. S. Meyer,

        Sounds like you could use some extra cash in these uncertain times, like Hunter Biden got. How does $50,000 a month sound?

        You’ll have to go through China’s reverse assimilation training camp first. With all the uncertainty of the China virus & vaccines, why not get what’s entitled to you?

        1. Indeed. It might work. The Democrats need something to export to China. Why not political prisoners?

        2. In general, General, money is one of the least important things as long as one is not at the brink of death from the lack of it. Would anyone want to trade places with Hunter Biden? If one does then that one is very deserving of pity.

  2. The Story Turley Would Rather NOT Address

    It’s funny how a well-known legal scholar like Jonathan Turley steers clear of issues where his expertise would theoretically come into play. Such an issue has been widely reported in mainstream media these last two days.

    On December 27 of last year, defeated president Donald Trump telephoned Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen demanding that the latter open a Justice Department investigation into fraud allegations concerning the 2020 presidential race.

    Rosen told Trump that said allegations were based on weak information. Trump responded by hinting that Rosen could be replaced. Trump then had the audacity to tell Rosen, “Just declare the election rigged. We’ll take care of the rest”.

    Rosen covered himself by taking careful notes of the inappropriate call. The incident corresponds with similar calls Trump made to Georgia’s Secretary of State and and election officials in Arizona. It appears that Trump was personally behind the entire ‘stolen election’ narrative.

    So it’s peculiar that Johnathan Turley would rather not address the legal implications of Trump’s unprecedented phone campaign to overturn the 2020 election. Apparently ‘free speech on Twitter is a more pressing issue, or so Turley believes.

    https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/trump-pressed-justice-department-to-discredit-2020-election-officials-notes-show-11627665949

    1. “Just declare the election rigged. We’ll take care of the rest”

      It seems yellow anonymous is trying to deceive and lie. That statement cannot be found in the WSJ article linked. I’ll let you post where that quote comes from so that people can determine for themselves if you have zero credibility.

      My guess is your left-wing site said what you quoted and referred you to the WSJ. You probably don’t even have a subscription, but as usual, copied the word of an untrustworthy site.

    2. A phone call memorialized in notes composed Rosen. We have no idea when. We know from past history the DoJ lies to further their political agenda. With out some sort of verification, we know this is nothing but more of the same. The phone call (if it happened) is no big deal. DoJ answers to and is under direction of the Executive Branch of Goverment.
      Let is remember the 4 different White House meetings at least two attended by Biden, running the spy ring against the Trump campaign, and then, the Trump Transition Team. The Obama has established a very low bar for directing the DoJ

    3. You gullible or think everyone else is.
      There is no evidence of any of this. The DoJ has been exposed as a raw political entity. You can’t explain away the Russia hoax.

    4. Rosen told Trump that said allegations were based on weak information.
      What precisely informed Rosens conclusion? I am unaware of the DoJ conducting any investigations. In fact, I am unaware of even a single investigation. And No, a recount is not an investigation.

    5. “The Story Turley Would Rather NOT Address”

      It’s called the “Fox effect.” This Trump DOJ story is not being covered by Fox News. But Turley does keep us abreast on the latest newsworthy dog mauling incident which provoked so much interest and yielded nearly 20 replies.

      Turley will have to say something when these Trump DOJ officials give their damning testimony before the 1/6 commission even if Fox News won’t report it.

      Or will we just get more “filler” News items?

  3. After having discussed covid-19 ad nauseam over the past 18+/- months with medical professional family members and clients I was aware of the cytokine storm that affects many of those hospitalized. In a recent discussion with my own doctor she put it very succinctly….”it is not the virus that kills people, it is the immune systems response to the virus that kills.” This made more sense to me than practically anything else I heard. Now, if I posted that on a Facebook page (which would be pretty hard since I don’t do facebook) or tweeted it, I can assume with a high degree of certitude that it would be taken down tout suite, no matter if it is accurate. Because, then a question could follow….if a vaccine is to create antibodies thereby increasing the immune system response to an infection could the vaccine actually create a cytokine event in some people as the original virus did? I don’t think anyone would want to go down that rabbit hole.

    1. “”it is not the virus that kills people, it is the immune systems response to the virus that kills.” This made more sense to me than practically anything else I heard.”

      Yes! Thank you for sharing that.

      This is why doctors who have said, “I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to let my 10 year old kid get the shots”… have raised all kinds of doubts in my mind about their thinking on these issues.

      1. But, Karen Ann and Anonymous, the VIRUS is what CAUSES the immune system to go into a cytokine storm. The immune system doesn’t suddenly go into overdrive without a reason. If you get vaccinated, your immune system will NOT go into a cytokine storm because if you come into contact with the virus after vaccination, your immune system will disable the virus. And, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that a vaccine causes a cytokine event because you only receive the spike protein DNA, not the whole virus cell, and the quantity of COVID spike protein you receive is so miniscule that it doesn’t result in a cytokine storm. It’s just enough to stimulate immunity.

        Karen Ann says that it would be going down a “rabbit hole” to get vaccinated and risk a cytokine storm. You’re just looking for a reason to fear the vaccine that isn’t based on science or experience. If it was possible that the vaccine sets off a cytokine storm, why haven’t the multiple millions of people who have received the vaccine experienced this effect? Reflect on what your doctor said: did she recommend not getting vaccinated because of a risk of cytokine storm? Side effects of the vaccine are relatively mild compared to COVID disease itself, and include fatigue, headache, sore arm, muscle and joint aches, low-grade fever, general malaise, etc., but not a cytokine storm.

        1. Antibody Dependent Enhancement. We should have never vaccinated during a pandemic with an MRA vaccine. we should have used therapeutics, it was all about the $$$. nanovax is doing it right

        2. Natcha, I did not say that getting the vaccine would “go down a rabbit hole”, or at least I did not mean to infer that. I meant anyone asking the question would be going down a rabbit hole.
          and, no, my doctor did not recommend that I not get vaccinated.
          “why haven’t the multiple millions of people who have received the vaccine experienced this effect?” Is it possibly because millions of people who were infected did not go into a cytokine storm only some of those millions. Could there be a pleiotropic effect?
          My basic point was that anyone who even asks questions that are out side of the box, so to speak, are denigrated, etc. We are expected to blindly accept whatever the powers that be say without question. Well, I guess I have always been too much of a rebel to just blindly accept without ask questions and the fact remains that these are still experimental vaccines and no one knows what the long term effects will be if any.

    2. Gee, I can’t imagian why the HHS/CDC would have pulled down the VAERS report 2 weeks ago & flipped the numbers 3 weeks ago? Yeah Right

      LIVE
      Explore
      Home
      News
      Podcasts
      Breaking News
      Social
      Watch Live
      Infowars Network
      The Alex Jones Show
      The War Room with Owen Shroyer
      The American Journal
      More
      Banned.Video
      Infowars Store
      Archive
      RSS
      Download Our App

      Terms of Service

      DMCA

      Advertise with us

      Affiliates

      Media Inquiries

      About

      Featured
      Oops! FDA Accidentally Reveals List of Covid Vaccine Side Effects, Including Myocarditis, Autoimmune Disease & Death
      by Adan Salazar
      July 30th 2021, 3:58 pm

      https://www.infowars.com/posts/oops-fda-accidentally-shows-list-of-covid-vaccine-side-effects-including-myocarditis-autoimmune-disease-death/

  4. If Twitter functions as a common carrier, it should act as one. I do not see the argument that Twitter is not a common carrier.

    1. S. Meyer,

      “ I do not see the argument that Twitter is not a common carrier.”

      A common carrier is a person or a commercial enterprise that transports passengers or goods for a fee and establishes that their service is open to the general public. Typical examples of common carriers include, a shipowner, railroad, airline, taxi service, etc.

      Twitter is the equivalent of a virtual bulletin board. It’s not a phone company either.

      It’s a private company that allows users to post content on THEIR bulletin board as long as they agree to the terms and conditions which they have a right to impose since it is their private bulletin board.

      Twitter doesn’t charge a fee to use its platform.

      1. “A common carrier is a person or a commercial enterprise that …”

        Svelaz, Yes, that is the common legal definition of a common carrier, but many laws have been passed that alter that definition, and we are a country of laws, supposedly. The communications Act of 1934 is one example, with others following.

        “Twitter is the equivalent of a virtual bulletin board.”

        You say that, but can you argue that it is the same as a virtual bulletin board? Can you define a virtual bulletin board? I don’t think you can discuss or define the bulletin board concept just like you couldn’t define CRT and used links that disputed some of the things you said. However, if you think you can, give it a try.

        “Twitter doesn’t charge a fee to use its platform.”

        That takes us to the question of what is a fee that we discussed before and, as usual, you never dealt with. We see services on the Internet that charge a fee if you wish to use them. However, that fee can be paid in another way, advertisements. This complicates one’s understanding of what a fee is and how it applies to the Internet in conjunction with existing laws.

        Your knowledge base is too small to discuss complex situations with. You grasp the first answer that agrees with you, so you end up not knowing much of anything. I suggest you do a bit of research where politics and confirmation bias aren’t involved. Then come back and discuss these things. Right now, you are too naive and political to discuss these things openly.

        1. S. Meyer, you’re hilarious.

          The communications act of 1934 was just to establish the FCC.

          It’s definition of common carrier still doesn’t apply to platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

          If you need to have further explanation of what a “virtual bulletin board” is by having to explain to you the definition of each of those words you definitely are not smart enough to understand the explanations. I’m sure you know what a bulletin board is and what it’s function is. Surely you’re not THAT stupid.

          A fee has only one meaning, a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.

          Facebook and Twitter do not charge a fee to join or use their platforms. Signing their agreement is not a fee either. It’s entirely voluntary.

          This is vey they can’t be categorized as a common carrier, or a publisher, or anything else other than a private electronic bulletin board that you can use to post your pictures, opinions, share, etc. AS LONG AS THEY ARE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE AGREEMENT MADE.

          It’s pretty simple really.

          1. I used the 1934 Act because newer laws are tacked onto it. Law has history, something you seem not to understand. Frequently, if you don’t know the history, you do not know the law.

            You think any knowledge deeper than the shallow knowledge you possess is hilarious. I and others understand that. That is the reason you are known to be a fool.

            “It’s definition of common carrier still doesn’t apply to platforms like Twitter and Facebook. ”

            That came with the CDA when the Internet was new and needed to be added to prior law.

            When talking about definitions, you have already proven yourself ignorant. Every time you are asked to define the way you envision something, you refuse. You did that with CRT. Finally, you provided a student paper. When questioned about the meaning of CRT from that student paper, you deflected. You pointed to other unnamed sources that you said had additional ideas. In other words, you didn’t know what you were talking about and still don’t.

            Let’s hear you define the words you use so we know what you are talking about. We need the legal definitions. Tell us what you consider a reasonable legal definition for the term “virtual bulletin board” that you used.

            Many times lawyers will include a definition of what they are saying in their documents. I guess that is too hilarious for a simple person. You represent the height of shallowness and the lowest level of intelligence.

            Today there are many ways for companies to earn what you know as a fee. Legally a fee is compensation for services (and other things) rendered. How people are compensated varies widely.

            The actual word fee has history, but to a simpleton, history is hilarious. If you weren’t such a simpleton, I would advise you to look at how the word fee was derived. FB and Twitter are compensated for their services.

            “It’s pretty simple really. ”

            For a simpleton, everything is simple.

            1. S. Meyer, I’ve defined for you in my own words what CRT is about. But then you demanded an official definition which I also provided to you only to again need a personal definition from me despite already giving it to you. You engage in this silly circular demands to avoid actual discussion of the flaws or points in your arguments. When you do end up getting to the point of actually discussing the issue you briefly touch on the topic only to veer off into an entirely different issue or just move the goal posts. So it’s useless to engage on that issue with you.

              Here you’re nitpicking on the word “fee”, furiously trying to make it fit into your already losing argument in order to make it look like it makes sense.

              You start bloviating about many ways “fees” can be interpreted, yet you don’t address the basic question that can’t be answered by your infinite hair splitting.

              So Twitter and Facebook users pay a fee? Yes or no? Do they pay ANY money or anything of value in order to join? Yes or no?

              “ The actual word fee has history,…” All words have history. Unfortunately for you the word “fee” legally today means exactly what I said it means.

              “ FB and Twitter are compensated for their services.”

              How? Twitter and Facebook users don’t pay them to use their platforms. They willingly join by signing an agreement, doing so allows them access to the platforms. What fee did they pay?

              Twitter and Facebook are not common carriers. They never will be, even by legal definition. The internet providers who ARE common carriers because you PAY them to provide you with access to the internet which today can be phone companies, and cable companies. Facebook and Twitter don’t control access to the internet. They just control access to their private platforms and they can censor anyone, and anything that violates the terms and conditions every user willingly agreed to.

              If government encourages or suggests certain information or individuals need to be scrutinized they CAN do that. Just like government only being able to recommend face masks or getting vaccinated.

              1. “I’ve defined for you in my own words what CRT is about. …”

                Svelaz, you are a liar. You have repeated that statement up to a dozen times when you could just have easily provided the definition. The answer is that you have to stay on a specific track, for once you go off of it, you don’t know where you are. That is because you know almost nothing about the things you talk about. You rely on left-wing hit sites that give you predigested answers not good enough for intelligent debate.

                Below is an example of one of my replies to you correcting your mistakes and adding information. Like a whole slew of others in this period, you ran away.

                SM

                1. July 17at 11:22 AM
                  Svelaz providing a quote with a lot of gibberish attached doesn’t deal with the basic questions.

                  I will extract the meaningful statements from this part of the paper.

                  “First, color-blindness legitimizes racism’s”

                  “Second, meritocracy allows the empowered”

                  He demonstrates no approval of either meritocracy or color-blindness but harps on these ideas since he believes the fault lies in others, not the minority subset.

                  However, as we have seen, Asians who are also minorities with quite noticeable features are excluded from consideration. It appears the author and many woke persons want victimhood repeatedly played for specific groups, rather than addressing solutions.

                  You and the author are enhancing racism. I am not playing down racism as a problem, but all people with differences face bias or racism. That includes Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Catholics, Asians, Irish, Italians etc. It is one of the prices people pay when moving to areas that are different from themselves.

                  Contrary to what the author believes and you seem to believe, MLK was not full of contempt for color-blindness or merit. He was in favor of both. A reason behind a problem doesn’t mean ridding oneself of the basic forms of advancement. CRT is a hateful extension of tribalism and moves society backward.

                  in the vicinity of: https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/16/let-them-die-fairfax-pta-and-naacp-officer-calls-for-the-death-of-who-oppose-crt-to-die/comment-page-1/#comment-2106688

                  SM

              2. “Here you’re nitpicking on the word “fee,”

                Svelaz, using a legal definition for a word is not nitpicking. It takes you off track because your left-wing sites didn’t bother to inform you of the legal meaning.

                Legally a fee is compensation for services (and other things) rendered. How people are compensated varies widely.

                “So Twitter and Facebook users pay a fee? Yes or no?”

                Yes. Absolutely. Legally they are being paid a fee. You don’t have the intellect to understand more than a limited amount, so this is all new for you. Go to a legal dictionary.

                “What fee did they pay?

                Information transfers in both directions. That was adequate compensation to make FB one of the largest corporations in the world.

                “They never will be, even by legal definition. ”

                Are you now a lawyer? You are acting as if you know the answers, but you don’t. First, provide the legal definition of common carrier and then show how it has been applied to the law. Remember, your limited grade school definitions are not good enough when interpreting the law.

                You won’t deal with definitions and accurate law because that requires knowledge, something your left-wing hit pieces do not provide to you.

                SM

    1. They’re allowed to censor because they are private companies without risk of losing their protection from lawsuits because the courts have interpreted section 230 broadly.

  5. Typo: In discussing the Alex Berenson comments on the Pfizer vax, you write that there was little difference in “morality” between two groups. Since the comments were in reference to the number of deaths, I believe you meant to write “mortality”.

  6. Okay, now I did what I should have done before commenting at all–read the study to which AB refers. It is even worse than I thought.

    He simply asserts–disingenuously?–that the “deaths” were due to the virus. He has absolutely NO evidence of this. In a group of 44,000 people, over the course of many months, we can expect people to die. The participants were age 16+; 40% were over age 55. There is a supplemental table–not included in the paper to which AB linked–that goes into cause of death. I am going to look for that–I think it is part of the original paper (this one is just a longer-term followup).

    I am not arguing that he should have been censored. I don’t believe he should be. But he is acting in bad faith–and he needs to be called out for this. The problem is, as always, that almost no one reads the original studies. They just jump on the bandwagon of bad interpretation.

    1. And yet, to attribute all deaths to Covid to justify unreasonable lockdowns is okay, right?

    2. If you did what you should have done you would know that AB did not say what you say he said. He did not assert that the deaths were due to COVID. He simply compared the overall deaths in the vacc´d group with the placebo group. You are the problem. And, fyi, twitter backed down and reinstated his post.

  7. Pfizer announced just a couple of days ago that it would have earnings of $33 billion from its covid vaccine this year. I wonder what that did to its stock value, and thus to the wealth of its stockholders.

    1. Heh. I am one of the stockholders. Sadly, not that much for those of us who don’t own hundreds of thousands of shares. Pfizer stock never seems to get above 45–and mostly languishes below 40. Having 5.6 billion shares outstanding will do that.

    2. And, Lysias, this is exactly WHY the CDC and FDA aren’t recommending a booster right now–concern that profits, rather than hard scientific data, could be motivating Pfizer’s recommendation for a booster without scientific studies proving that immunity from the vaccine wanes over time enough to put the vaccinated at risk for infection. This is being looked at, because we don’t have sufficient data to know how long immunity levels will stay high enough to protect those of us who are vaccinated. That’s because COVID hasn’t been around that long, but time will tell. Even if a booster becomes necessary, it may be slightly different from the original version to include the Delta variant, just like flu shots vary from season to season based on the flu virus mutating over time. Contrary to what the alt-right media tells you, the CDC and FDA are advocating for Americans.

      1. “[I]t may be slightly different from the original version to include the Delta variant, just like flu shots vary from season to season based on the flu virus mutating over time.”

        So Covid *is* an endemic virus.

        You might want to inform your lord, Fauci.

  8. It’s obvious that China’s Sinovac vaccine is better than the Pfizer vaccine….Because its made in China & is safe.

    Give credit where credit is due. Especially to China’s front line scientists working in the biological weapon labs.

    China state run contractors are also biding on US $1 Trillion dollar infrastructure projects using cheap US immigrant labor. China will low bid everyone….And due quality work.

    All those Apple I Smart phones are made where? In China of course. Don’t worry, having a Chinese combat boot on your neck isn’t that bad. China is the best.

  9. And Alex doesn’t understand the results he is going on about.

    If significantly fewer people contract a possibly fatal illness due to a medical intervention, but the same percentage OF THOSE THAT FALL ILL happen to succumb, the intervention has reduced the fatality rate. If the fatality rate is 10% (for ease of math) for both vaccinated and unvaccinated, but the vaccinated “pool” of infections is 10, while the unvaccinated pool is 1000, then the death rate is higher in the unvaxed group.

    Further, looking at the individual cases is important when the n is so small. Remember, every death in a study is counted, whether it results from the disease or drug or not.

    Correct interpretation of clinical data is difficult.

    1. Oops–rather than death rate, I should have said, the absolute number of deaths. Which is what we really care about.

  10. I am very loud in declaring my contempt for Lefties.

    This incident is a prime example of their arrogance, authoritarian ways, and intellectual dishonesty.

    1. You must be kidding. The right wing just wants to disenfranchise those who disagree with them or is it execute them.

      Professor you whine about the power of corporations to censure on their own platforms and blame the alleged left wing but it is the Republicans and the right wing who argue that owners of private property and corporations should be permitted to do what they want, when they want. This is exactly what the right wind has worked hard for but now it doesn’t want it.

      I object to censorship but if a corporation doesn’t want someone on its platform it can kick them off whether I object to it or not! It’s the Republican way!

      1. Not the “right wing just wants to disenfranchise” canard (yet again). Give it a rest.

        First, polls indicate that 80% of Americans are in favor of voter ID.

        Second, the Texas law is meant, not to discourage voting, but to reduce voter fraud. Not only are several types of ID accepted:

        “voters who face obstacles to obtaining one of those photo IDs are still able to vote. Those voters need to present another acceptable document verifying their identity, like a current utility bill, and sign a sworn statement indicating the reason that they were unable to obtain one of the accepted photo IDs.”

        Anyone who cannot meet these requirements is probably too feeble-minded to vote. Even dementia-afflicted Joe “Gropy Gramps” Biden should be able to meet these requirements,

  11. I usually really like and enjoy Berenson and I abhor Twitter and censorship, but I agree with the poster above who stated that Alex has jumped the shark on this subject. To say or even imply that vaccines give zero protection against covid deaths is ridiculous to any objective observer. I love and I watch Tucker Carlson every single night, but he too is of the charts on vaccines. Odd that Tucker and Alex both took the vaccine and both had theior families take the vaccine. Alex even stated just last night that his child got the vaccine?????

    I do not want Alex censored and I agree with another poster above who argues that people should shun any site that censors “our” side. But I wish that Tucker, Laura Ingraham and Alex would stop downplaying the efficacy of the vaccine, it is demonstrably a godsend. If you don’t think so then please look at the mortality rates among the over 65 age group. People over 65 are the most highly vaccinated group and also the most highly at risk group of people without co-morbidities and their mortality rates have plummeted. Why would the most at risk group and the most vaccinated group have deaths go down if not for the vaccine? It is just darn common sense.

    1. So linking to the actual study offends you? Why do leftists want information suppressed? Carlson cited the VAERS data (a government source) referenced the website so all could see it for themselves and was roundly criticized as spreading misinformation.
      Biden blares out the if you get vaccinated you won’t get Covid. This is provably misinformation. Should he be banned from social media?

      Or are some animals truly more equal than others?

      1. Ti, If you are talking to me I suggest you LEARN TO READ. I say in my comment that I do NOT support censorship and I call for people to stop using Twitter and I also state that I love Tucker and I watch him every night.

        I will now suppose that you were referring to others and not me even though your comment is a reply to me???

  12. Blacks used put Martin Luther King on a pedestal.

    Now it is George Floyd.

    Indicative of the decline of black culture.

  13. I don’t think Twitter should suspect people for having different opinions but, while I really enjoyed Alex’s take on lockdowns, he’s jumped the shark on vaccinations. Pfizer’s updated trial data showed continued strong efficacy. The conclusions Alex tries to draw (and I don’t think he quotes anything directly) come from more of a place that he believes the data and science around the vaccines is all fabricated to enrich Big Pharma.

    That’s a bridge too far for even this sketpic.

    Still, I’d rather we respond to Alex with more, better informed speech, than to silence him. That simply feeds the narrative that he’s hiding some sort of obscured truth, when he’s not.

  14. Alex Berenson did not, and does not, simply quote results from clinical trials. Rather, he misquotes, manipulates, lies and fabricates results. He is a charlatan, a grifter and a public menace. Does he have a right to misquote, manipulate, lie and fabricate? Absolutely. Is Twitter wrong in censoring him? Yes. Do I give a damn? NO.

  15. Twitter and facebook only exist because people use them. If people walked away from this communist party behavior, this would stop. But unfortunately people also said they couldn’t smell the smoke from the nazi crematoriums either.

  16. If you’re a Twit you’re a Twit ..
    You’re a Twit all the way!
    From your first time in hell…
    To your last dying day!

  17. Newark,NJ a bronze statue of George Floyd just went up and is being worshipped by the far left which include Biden/Harris and Pelosi…so we take down the founding fathers and put up Floyd…After 6 burglaries, 3 car thefts, committing 2 violent home invasions, 3 armed robberies, beating 4 victims senseless, passing counterfeit money, and being arrested 23 times since 1998, George Floyd hasn’t committed a crime in over one year

    BUT HIS FAMILY HAS RECEIVED $27 MILLION FROM THE STATE AND $20 MILLION FROM “GO FUND ME”

    Also, President Biden and his VP met with the Floyd family on May 25th, the one year anniversary of his death .

    Nancy Pelosi in June of 2020, gave the Floyd family a folded American Flag that had flown over the Capitol on the day he died – as a fallen hero > Think about that one.

    1. This is the era we live in. One of team politics and binary thinking. I get called a Trump apologist as has Prof Turley, for taking a principled position that is at odds with Trump opponents. I get the feeling that if Trump spoke glowingly about motherhood, there are many who would come out against it as white supremacy.

      It is possible to think that Floyd was wrongfully killed, and that he was among the dregs of society, and that he Chauvin did not receive a fair trial, and that the judge imposed a just sentence based on the verdict rendered, all at the same time.

Leave a Reply