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.


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

  1. Have any of you been hooked up to a respirator? It is what happens if you have serious complications from Covid. A person very dear to me was attached to a respirator 30 years ago and it was a horrible experience for him and for me, if a vaccination or a mask will help prevent that from happening to you. You are only hurting yourself to make this issue political.

  2. Biden gets something wrong every time he Speaks — its misinformation – how come nobody shuts him down lol

  3. “Science writer”? What science qualifications does he have? He writes spy novels & has a BA in history. He badly misinterprets data – either on purpose or out of ignorance. And when he does that on Twitter, he gets suspended. He spreads so much misinformation that if you Google “the wrongest man,” he’s all the top results. I sincerely hope his suspension becomes permanent.

    1. Berenson was an investigative journalist (remember them?) for 16 years, the last 10 at “The New York Times.”

      If you’re going to present an individual’s bio, don’t lie by omission.

    2. Nice ad hominen. You don’t need to be a scientist to be scientifically literate. This is why we’re mired in this medical tyranny nightmare. Believe aren’t critically thinking and are afraid to ask questions to our medical bureaucrat overlords. We have misplaced trust that any scientist must know everything regardless of their specialty. The greatest example of this is the great mask masquerade and charade. The scientific literature (who I as an educated individual with a university degree and own a business taught myself to understand regarding mask studies) shows an overwhelming body of evidence dating back decades showing they’re ineffective and were never advised in community settings for several medical and logical reasons. First among them, masks were originally invented for bacteria not viruses. The next point of logic to consider is if dozens upon dozens of RCT studies since 1920 revealed masks have very little marginal benefits (with potentially high health costs), what happened in 2020 that suddenly – amulets long-considered to be the weakest of the NPIs – they became our first line of defence? So I, as an ostensibly mildly intelligent and concerned citizen, looked into it. I wanted to see if any studies had come in to over turn the evidence. Hint: No.

      Several public health officials originally said masks weren’t useful early on including Fauci and then pivoted. I always viewed the ‘to save PPE for hospitals’ with a slight skeptical eye. And sure enough, the Fauci emails confirmed Fauci did not believe them to be effective. Yet, he publicly continues to advise it use. Indeed, despite the evidence, epidemiologists, physicians, cardiologists, journalists and others continue to peddle the use of masks despite not being PPE experts. PPE experts often, when you’re lucky enough to find them, warn against mass mask wearing. So do physicists who understand particles and anesthesiologists. So I just looked at the entire body of evidence including measuring the argument for and against and concluded for myself masks are social problem and do not contribute anything in the ‘fight’ against a possibly bio-engineered virus.

      In fact, we have graph after chart showing the rate of infection rising once mask mandates are enforced. It’s one of the great pseudo-scientific moves of our times to masks a single child for an aersolized virus. I’ll stop here because I can easily continue explaining what I’ve leaned about masks. It’s infuriating that any public official continues to promulgate the idea they make a difference. I’ll just close by saying if they do, please explain Sweden and Norway where masks are optional and not worn in society at large. And Finland and Denmark. None of these places mandate masks in schools. They’e at least spared the obtuse spectacle of seeing people wearing them outside or in a car alone, and worse, watching kids play sports in masks despite WHO recommendations.

      With that long example, I argue Alex Berenson is fully capable as a trained investigative journalist to understand vaccines. He’s questioning the entire ‘safe and effective’ narrative which to be frank he’s right. How can something be so WITHOUT long-term data? Makes no sense. And just look at how they’re pinning variants on the unvaccinated. Again, illogical and is without proof. In fact, plenty of PROMINENT virologists (censored of course) have warned against mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic. In this case, they worried about ADE’s which is what might be happening. Instead, they have the pitchforks out looking for scapegoats. Except here it’s not Jews but the ‘anti-vaxxers’. Perhaps he can be wrong, however, I wouldn’t dismiss him because some of his information is critical to the extent it’s not being reported and he certainly should not be censored. So please, attack his content. Not the messenger. Censorship is a social poison.

      Alex’s job – and others like him – is to make us think and ask: What if we’re wrong?

      Personally, I think the chances are hight because this is a moral panic. We may be over reacting.


    3. Leilatha-I would remind you that opinions are like A–holes-everybody’s got one! The suspension of Alex by Twatter will eventually cost them dearly. Twatter is nothing more than a public chat room & their opinion is invalid, their deciding that their opinions have validity is the height of conceit. just like your opinion of Alex. In point of fact my examination of his assertions proves to me that his statement of facts is far more valid that the vaunted St. Faucci, the White House flacks, or the World Hookers Organization. These fools are easily discerned to be lying-it’s whenever their lips are moving. Only suckers believe them could it be that you are in that category??

    4. What has he claimed that isn’t accurate? He’s just a science reporter, and fiction novelist, I’m sure you have much better credentials, since that’s so important to you, to debate his claims?

  4. “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.”

    So a disease that was never airborne, has a variant that is now being spread as easily as something that *is* airborne? So that makes no sense.

    …and even if that’s true, which they have no way of testing right now, this “fact” would make masks even more useless than they have been this entire time.

    We have over 100million vaccinated people and if you believe the crappy PCR test, way more than that who already have antibodies (recovered cases). By now we’ve reached herd immunity and should give up the charade.

    1. *Always airborne.

      The droplet charade that “justified” universal masking was another hoax.

      Viruses can travel over oceans. Pathogenic viruses are infinitesimally less likely to do so because they are adapted to life in living hosts, but the idea that this particular virus just safely dropped to the ground after a few seconds was always nonsense.

  5. Jonathan –

    Why did you neglect to mention the reason why Alex’s comments were considered misinformation – specifically that he deceptively compared deaths between vaccinated and unvaccinated without noting, explicitly, that the numbers were ALL CAUSE DEATHS – which is largely irrelevant w/r/t the efficacy of the vaccines?

    Unless you’re tying to bias the discussion?

    1. Not on twitter (booted off, too much speaking truth to power) but checked out Alex’s feed daily including the replies offering differing views and information and a lot of personal slurs against him when he was hitting the nail on the head so hard they had nothing else to say.

      Overall he has prepared me well and a welcomed voice of reason and sanity. For instance, I am in a bit of a higher risks with COVID, so knowing in advance, contrary to the White House lies that you would not catch COVID, spread or die from Covid with this jab, that it was in fact happening in large amounts in UK / Israel and beyond, I adjusted my life style accordingly and alerted older friends they may not be as protected as they thought and the so called “vaccine” questionable effectiveness was waning quickly. They had both had the jab long ago as did other older loved ones. In fact Israel right now rightly or wrongly is giving third jabs to the elderly.

      Of course the WH lies were soon to blow up in a somewhat spectacular fashion starting when some Texas Democrats like so many that preach climate change and all kinds of other rules for thee and not for me thought it was great idea and publicity stunt to go off partying on a private jet which turned into a super spreader event of the vaccinated, including among WH staffers. How many and how sick we will probably never know because without a free and fair press and with such a tyrannical White House, no one’s digging.

      Very frightening to say the least to witness before my very eyes the WH spreading disinformation while shutting down truthful information that could help safe lives and allowed parents and teenagers to make better informed decisions before risking being a human guinea pig and huge money maker for BIG PHARMA for a virus they probably have less to fear from.

      Of course now the cat is out of the bag on BREAK THROUGHS at least to some extent,and of course they are trying to scapegoat the unvaccinated, the latest strain du jour,everyone and everyone except themselves and the drug itself, that isn’t quite the miracle promised and possibly if not likely other unknown long term health trade offs. They owe the public honesty, yet they continue to hide the truth by things like only testing the unvaccinated and trying to drum up some civil war. Does Biden really think calling the unvaccinated “stupid” holds much wait with those who are bright enough to seeing he is a lying and at least brain dying, creepy old man? No good comes from that, and no good comes from the no good shutting down free speech.

      I am sure my practicing free speech hear, will trigger some, but thank you Turley for speaking up for free speech.

    2. Almost as bad as relying on a shitty PCR test – shitty to begin with, never mind all the additional cycles they were put through for the past year and a half triggering a ton of false positives – or actually believing that those same shitty tests were diagnostic tools at all. Also almost as bad as believing the fake death tallies the media has been screaming about, or that “masks work” (they don’t) or that “lockdowns work” (they don’t).

      Almost as bad….but nah, not nearly as bad as all that.

  6. To the shock of many, Turley finally reveals:

    “I was eager to be vaccinated as was my entire family. I would get the vaccination today with equal enthusiasm.”

    If ever you Trumpists needed proof positive that he is NOT an anti-vaxxer like most of you. Not only did he get vaccinated, he did so ENTHUSIASTICALLY! Imagine that! His whole family no less!

    Let that be a lesson to you all Trumpists- Turley does not share your irrational “Deep State” conspiracy theories. Case closed.

    1. “If ever you Trumpists needed proof positive that he is NOT an anti-vaxxer like most of you. Not only did he get vaccinated, he did so ENTHUSIASTICALLY! Imagine that! His whole family no less!”

      Jeff, you are being foolish. I am very pro-Trump, and I enthusiastically took the vaccine at the earliest time possible. I cannot think of a friend equally pro Trump who hasn’t yet taken the vaccine enthusiastically. In fact, we were all helping one another early in the game to get signed up for our vaccines. The only people I have significant acquaintance with that didn’t get the vaccine were on the other side of the aisle, but that is anecdotal.

      Our problem is not with the vaccine. It is with our skepticism over how Fauci, Biden and others are dealing with the situation. Stopping the flow of information from well-respected scientists and physicians is not the way to go, but that is the Biden way. Stupidity regarding the potential use of non-patented drugs that compete with Pfizer’s income is where many of us differ. I don’t take the position that one drug is good and another bad. I take the position that the left should not be politicizing things and the information market remain open.

      Did you really go to law school?

      1. This is the level of overt LYING we have now reached.
        The public health authorities are saying this nonsense (vaccines are 100% in preventing hospitalization and death), as the actual real world DATA from Israel, the UK, and the US (from the new leaked CDC document) shows this to be completely false. (I’ve attached screenshots of that data so you can see for yourself).
        Even just the recent outbreak in Massachusetts the other day… 74% of infected people were vaccinated, and 4 of the 5 hospitalized people were fully vaccinated. Yet, the public health authorities still get on TV and LIE to your face, saying that the vaccines are 100% effective in preventing hospitalization and death.
        Moreover, if this WERE actually true — 100% effective against hospitalization and death — how exactly does it make any sense to fear the unvaccinated or seek to force something on them? LOL
        They want to have it both ways — imagining they are fully protected, by also being so fearful that they ARE NOT PROTECTED that they seek to FORCE a novel medical intervention (with unknown long-term safety) on others.
        If you believe you just took a medical intervention that has you fully protected, then you should just sit back and watch others suffer at not being smart like you and making the same decision you did.
        After all, we now KNOW that the vaccine does not prevent transmission (vaccinated people transmit it with just as high or higher viral loads than unvaccinated people), so there is no longer any scientific rationale for forced vaccination, for imagining that if others are vaccinated that you can’t get it, and for vaccine passports.

        1. Thank you. More is unknown than known so each individual should make their own decisions.

          Better decisions would be made if the left didn’t lie so much and prevent the free transmission of information.

    2. Turley has been very clear about his vaccination status and that of his family for a long while now. Where have you been?

      I know plenty of people who never voted for Trump who refuse to get vaccinated on common sense grounds – they already had COVID and their natural immunity is sufficient, or they are young and healthy and trust their own health more than they trust a brand new medicine that the government is trying to coerce them into taking.

      It makes zero sense to be “team vaccine”. You should be on the same team as the rest of us – “team herd immunity” – and understand that vaccines are only one tool in the tool chest. Ivermectin and antibodies are in that same tool chest.

      The “case” you’re making when you say “case closed” seems to exist only in your mind.

      1. The government is going to coerce people to protect their health and those around them by taking the vaccine just like it did with second-hand smoking. People resisted that at first too, but they eventually came to their senses.

        1. Jeff:

          You are comparing two entirely different things.

          Second hand smoke exposes other people, often against their will, to carcinogens because of your own actions. Preventing someone from smoking where their smoke could be inhaled by others in a public establishment protects other people’s rights not to inhale carcinogens or asthma triggers. Smokers are still able to smoke in their own homes, cars, or outside.

          Requiring anyone to get any vaccine means that you don’t have the right to say no. You’re forced to take a vaccine into your body no matter if you are opposed.

          Vaccines are designed to protect the receiver when they are exposed to contagious people. That is quite literally the purpose of every vaccine. We live in a global world, and we have no idea who is vaccinated for what as we walk down the street.

          I’m vaccinated for Covid-19, and various other things. However, this is an issue of basic human rights and liberty. It is a slippery slope to grant the government the power to force you to take a vaccine, or any other medical procedure, against your will. It’s always “my body, my choice” when it refers to the other person’s body in utero, but never with regard to vaccines.

          I’ve often told people, over the years, that it is immaterial whether they agree with the current list of required vaccines or not. I’ve said, one day, a vaccine will become mandatory that you’re not comfortable with. Maybe it will be a new vaccine, or one with a safety record you question. Or maybe you’ve had side effects you’re uncomfortable with. You’ve already surrendered your right to say no. If you wait for a vaccine to be mandated that you don’t want, it’s too late.

          Make vaccines available. Provide accurate information. Let the people decide and be responsible for their own decisions.

          1. Karen says:

            “Vaccines are designed to protect the receiver when they are exposed to contagious people. That is quite literally the purpose of every vaccine.”

            If vaccines were 100% effective, you would have a point, but we know they are not. Unvaccinated people pose a threat to everyone. It is just as *inconsiderate* to smoke around non-smokers as it is to be contagious in a crowd.

            Karen says:

            “Requiring anyone to get any vaccine means that you don’t have the right to say no. You’re forced to take a vaccine into your body no matter if you are opposed.”

            No one is going to hold you down and force an injection into you. You will have a choice, a forced choice to be sure, but not force itself. Not unlike when I cop informs you that you have a choice to take a breathalyzer or refuse and lose your license for a year. So stop lying about being forced your will.

            Karen says:

            “It is a slippery slope to grant the government the power to force you to take a vaccine, or any other medical procedure, against your will.”

            The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Please Google it and educate yourself.

            Karen says:

            “Make vaccines available. Provide accurate information. Let the people decide and be responsible for their own decisions.”

            Society does not let people decide for themselves whether they pose a risk to bystanders. People don’t decide for themselves whether drink driving poses a risk. Some people don’t have the good sense to come in from the rain! We have government experts who have dedicated their lives to study all manner of risks to the general population. Ever hear of the FDA? Conservatives, resent, dare I say it, even hate educated elites. Thanks to Trump, Trumpists now distrust the government as the “Deep State,” despite the fact that a majority of civil servants are hard-working, God-fearing people who are dedicated to protecting your best interests with no thanks from Trumpists.

            1. If vaccines were without serious risk, your argument might work. But since these c19 vaccines are linked to deaths and all sorts of nasty side effects, and the virus itself is mostly benign to those below the age of 70, or otherwise healthy, your entire argument is moot. You simply cannot force a healthy population to potentially compromise their health under the disguise of social responsibility. This virus is not MERS; it’s not Ebola; it’s not the bubonic plague. The threat has to justify the action. In the beginning, we had no idea; now we have a really good idea of what we’re up against and it does not justify mass vaccinations nor the discrimination and coercion tactics that have been employed to fulfill that misguided goal.

              1. Is Biden planning another Kabul?


                Two senior FDA officials resign over Biden administration booster shot plan…
                Biden administration’s plans to move forward with recommending COVID-19 booster shots without their prior approval, according to a report. …

                According to trade publication Endpoints, the officials felt they were sidelined on major decisions, that the administration’s plan for boosters was jumping the gun, and that Marks should have pushed for the FDA to have more autonomy on the matter. …

                “The administration’s booster plan; it wasn’t the FDA’s booster plan,” University of Pennsylvania infectious disease expert Paul Offit, who serves on the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee, told Politico. “The administration has kind of backed themselves up against the wall a little bit here.” …

                President Joe Biden
                President Biden’s administration’s plan calls for a third dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine eight months after recipients’ second jab. …

                The FDA’s former acting chief scientist Luciana Borio took to social media to praise Krause and Gruber’s work.

                “@US_FDA is losing two giants who helped bring us many safe and effective vaccines over decades of public service,” she tweeted.

                The administration seems to be creating fog and after Kabul. Trust is declining rapidly.

                I remember when leftist ideas condemned millions upon millions to HIV, where millions have died.

                The left cared about its political power rather than the lives and safety of people. They continue to do that here.

      2. Wank:

        Herd immunity is comprised of natural immunity, acquired immunity, and vaccinate-acquired immunity. Natural immunity refers to those who just don’t get a disease, like kids who were sent to chicken pox parties over and over again but never got it. Acquired immunity is when you recover from a disease, and have protective antibodies that your body developed naturally. Vaccine-acquired immunity is a variation of this, in which our body naturally produces protective antibodies from being exposed to the antigen in a vaccine.

        Herd immunity requires high vaccination rates to render any disease extinct. Otherwise, diseases like small pox and chicken pox would have naturally faded. Every year, people with natural and acquired immunity die, and people without any immunity are born. There is a continually renewing reservoir of vulnerable people.

        The only way to render a virus functionally extinct is to have a herd immunity of around 95%, for highly infectious diseases. That means that at any given time, 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated, naturally immune, or have recovered from Covid. Note that the last two also require a sufficient level of protective antibodies that last.

        I agree with you that treatment and prophylactic measures are critical. We shouldn’t just rely on vaccines, especially since this little beastie keeps mutating.

        We should be “team beat this disease into submission”.

        I have not yet read any paper on how well those with acquired immunity to Covid-19 alpha through recovery from infection resist infection to Delta. The vaccine mimics infection with the alpha variant. The protective antibodies should be similar. I suspect that those who have acquired immunity from alpha just from getting sick would have a similar vulnerability to delta variant. But those who have already recovered from Delta would be immune.

    3. I try to ignore this Idiot….but this post by Jeffs demands a reply.

      if ever I shall be shocked by anything the Good Professor has to say… will be if he ever gives a single one of your posts the slightest amount of credibility…ever.

      I am shocked that you remain a Poster here.

      1. Ralph,

        I never said,

        “if ever I shall be shocked by anything the Good Professor has to say… will be if he ever gives a single one of your posts the slightest amount of credibility…ever.”

        I think you have me confused with someone else.

            1. His post was very clear. There was no indication he was quoting you.

              Are you illiterate? Try rereading the post.

                1. What makes you think he was quoting?

                  You wear blinders so you are blind to a lot of things.

                  1. There is one person who remains anonymous who is on my side, but I wish that he or she would select a pseudonym so at least I know with whom I am conversing, for I tend not to respond to anonymous people. I know who the previous anonymous poster was by virtue of his attack. As I have indicated previously, his schtick is old; he needs to put in a little more effort in thinking up insults. It’s better to be despised than ignored, and his attacks used to be amusing, but now they are repetitive.

                    1. Well, that should have read “replying” — with an “ing”…

                      My apologies for remaining anonymous, Jeff.

                    2. Thanks for the heads up. I just wish that I could know which anonymous person is replying to me so I could keep track whether it is more than one!
                      It’s kinda lonely here in this bed of Trumpist/Q-Anon folk.

                      Since I don’t know who you are, I am going to assume that you are Allan’s mom.

                    3. Jeff, I spoke to your mom. She is very embarrassed over how you act. Maybe you should think before you write.

                      Allan’s Mom

  7. Alex Berenson should be free to speak his mind, and engage in discussions.

    That said, here is the article to which he referenced. “VE” means vaccine efficacy. Click on “download pdf” to read the full article. Participants had to be previously healthy or had stable chronic medical conditions prior to vaccination. Patients with a medically confirmed Covid-19 infection in their history were excluded. Note that “declining trend in vaccine efficacy” refers to the variants.

    “Results BNT162b2 continued to be safe and well tolerated. Few participants had adverse events leading to study withdrawal. VE against COVID-19 was 91% (95% CI 89.0-93.2) through up to 6 months of follow-up, among evaluable participants and irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE of 86%-100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse characteristics of age, sex, race/ethnicity, and COVID-19 risk factors in participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against severe disease was 97% (95% CI 80.3−99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, B.1.351 (beta), was predominant, 100% (95% CI 53.5, 100.0) VE was observed.

    Conclusion With up to 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradually declining trend in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing COVID-19”

    Here is the part that Berenson took issue with:

    “During the blinded, controlled period, 15 BNT162b2 and 14 placebo recipients died; during the open-label period, 3 BNT162b2 and 2 original placebo recipients who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died. None of these deaths were considered related to BNT162b2 by investigators. Causes of death were balanced between BNT162b2 and placebo groups (Table S4).”

    More on efficacy:

    “Among 44,486 evaluable participants, irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, 81 COVID-19 cases were observed among vaccine and 873 among placebo recipients, corresponding to 91.1% VE (95% CI [88.8-93.0]).”

    “Of 31 cases of severe, FDA-defined COVID-19,12 with onset post-dose 1, 30 occurred in placebo recipients, corresponding to 96.7% VE (95% CI 80.3-99.9) against severe COVID-19 (Fig. 2, Table S6).”

    The problem is that the paper did not include Table S4, which related to causes of deaths.

    If you are a participant in a clinical trial, and you get hit by a car or mugged and killed in Central Park, your death is counted. This is why COD is critical to determining if it had anything to do with the vaccine. Since that table was not made available, all Berenson had to go by was the # of participants who died who took the vaccine, compared with those who had the placebo.

    1. Karen,

      Thank you for clarifying that. I too read the paper after AB was suspended, and couldn’t find any information on the cause of death – which leads a reader to believe those deaths must have been related to the clinical trial. The only reason I questioned the numbers was because apprx 15 deaths in a group of around 2K (for each group of the infected) seemed a little high to be just from COVID (IFR’s vary widely depending on the median group age & co-morbidity).

      Now I know why. So then, why is it whenever many papers on COVID are published (as well as in government reports), far too often any data of extreme public interest is obscured or not included? Might it be that in a sample this size, there was no significant difference in deaths from COVID?

      A tempest in a tea pot. Although, technically, AB was correct…their was no substantive difference in death rate in either group (even if the sample size was too small to detect it).

      1. No significant difference in cv19 deaths ( deaths due to the disease)? If so, then the 95% figure is virtually meaningless. This deserves to be brought out. The data sources are complex but it now appears as though the vaccine doesn’t prevent the infection ( Israeli figures). Transmission seems in question. Does it do anything?

        1. Philip – the Israeli paper referenced the Delta strain. All of the current vaccines in use, that I know of, were developed using the original, alpha strain. They showed only 39% effectiveness against infection at any level of the Delta strain.

          Although the vaccines are not nearly as effective at preventing delta infection as alpha, they do significantly lessen the severity of the disease. It demonstrated 88% effectiveness against hospitalizations and 91% against severe illness.

          This does not really contradict the UK studies that claimed around 88% effectiveness against symptomatic disease, as they were using two entirely different parameters. The kicker is that this high rate of breakthrough infections is the basis for the policy of requiring the vaccinated to mask. However, most people were counting on not having to wear the mask, and everything opening back up as close to normal as we’ll ever get after getting vaccinated. To be told that they have to return to shut downs and masks is demoralizing, and generates sincere and justified resentment. From a policy standpoint, I think vaccination is better than masking. Anyone who is sick with anything (I’m talking to you, Chris Cuomo) should stay home.

          I am not convinced that a simple booster dose is the best way to increase immunity against catching the disease at all, although as we can’t get a new vaccine out of thin air, a booster is the only vaccination avenue available. Since all Covid vaccines are Emergency Use Authorization, then Pfizer et al would need to apply for authorization from the FDA for a third booster. It takes time to gather the data needed.

          This also underscores the need to keep working on treatment regimens. This nasty virus will clearly keep mutating, and is likely to be with us for the duration. I believe China owes a tremendous debt to the people of the entire world.

      2. Gordon – you make a good point. Excluding the data that would be of the most pressing interest to the public just leaves it to our imagination.

    2. That’s an interesting point.

      On a related note, instead of allowing the media to bathe us in their panic porn for the past year and a half, we should have demanded that no one be allowed to include in a COVID death count anyone who did not die directly from COVID – meaning, if they got hit by a car or mugged and killed in Central Park, their death was counted as a COVID death if they had tested positive, even if they were asymptomatic.

    3. Karen, thank you for doing the research in support of your comment above. I appreciate that.

      Mr. Berenson was well within his rights to make his observation about the public information. I think the response of Twitter in this instance, shows the importance of Mr. Turley’s emphasis on free speech issues. When I read Mr. Berenson on substack, I too went to the paper you link above. I found the S4 showing only 3 covid related deaths out of the tens of thousands of study participants and 29 total deaths. [2 covid deaths among the unvaccinated and 1 death of covid-19 pneumonia among the vaccinated.] I think Mr. Berenson’s comment was a good starting off point for a discussion. Unfortunately, censorship does not provide the opportunity for the richer discussion of the study.

      Thank you Mr. Turley for highlighting this issue.

  8. It is a basic human right to speak your mind.

    The elites of Big Tech treat their customers like perpetual children. You’re not allowed to read that. You’re not allowed to talk about that.

    We need a digital public square. If it’s legal to say in a public park, it should be able to be said on this digital public square.

    Big Tech acts like a phone operator who listens in to your phone calls, breathing heavily, and cutting in when she disagrees with what you say. If you really offend her, she’ll cut the call and disconnect your phone service.

    1. Karen,

      “ It is a basic human right to speak your mind.

      The elites of Big Tech treat their customers like perpetual children. You’re not allowed to read that. You’re not allowed to talk about that.”

      You and many conservatives on this blog really don’t grasp the concept of what “big tech” is doing.

      Conservatives, politicians, anyone has a right to express their opinions and ideas, they can lie, manipulate, or slew disinformation at their hearts content. Nothing really stops them. Nothing.

      HOWEVER, these same folks do these expressions of ideas and opinions and lies, and misinformation, etc etc. on a PRIVATE platform that gives them the biggest audience for their views and ideas. Once on the platform they believe they have a right to post whatever they want BUT it is entirely dependent on ACCESS to this private platform and to access it you must AGREE to THEIR terms. They can do anything they want if the terms are violated. The constitution’s prohibitions don’t apply to these platforms. Is it wrong, of course it is, but the constitution doesn’t say anything about things that seem wrong as illegal or even immoral. They are PRIVATE companies.

      Big tech are NOT phone operators, they will never be categorized as such. They don’t snoop on PRIVATE one to one communication such as messaging. The only time they can censor or revoke anyone’s privileges is when they PUBLICLY make a statement or make false claims. They absolutely CAN censor or remove content, because the terms everyone signed gives them the ability and legal reasons to do so.

      Trump had his own blog where he could speak as freely as he wanted and nobody could censor him at all. BUT it only lasted a month because it didn’t have what he wanted. Access to an audience of millions instantly. Trump didn’t want to do the hard work of building up a substantial audience. He wanted what it took Facebook and Twitter years to build. They had every right to ban Trump from their platforms. Trump doesn’t have a right to be on Twitter or Facebook.

      1. You simplify things to fit your very limited view. These are not private companies but instead public herald companies who are not entitled to censorship.
        Additionally their products use the public airwaves, infrastructure and marketplace. Without these they would not function.
        If you ever wondered where you would have stood in 1938 Germany, now you know.

        1. Nick, your statement to Svelaz, “If you ever wondered where you would have stood in 1938 Germany, now you know.” was absolutely on target. The only problem is Svelaz doesn’t have the intellect to actually understand why.

  9. I posted a similar comment here in response to Prof. Turley’s prior post. I also included a link to the actual study. I haven’t checked to see whether my comment is still up.

    The study includes data which can be construed as suggesting that the disease is not deadly for the population participating in the study. Therefore, anyone having a sufficient audience who draws attention to this inconvenient fact must be made to disappear.

    One suspects the study will also be amended or withdrawn.

  10. Jonathan: There is a postscript to my comments about your discussion re Alex Berenson. There is another anti-vaxxer down in Tennessee. His name is Phil Valentine. He is a radio talk show host. Regarding Covid vaccines Valentine has told his listeners. “What are my odds of getting COVID? They’re pretty low. What are my odds of dying from COVID if I get it? Probably way less than one percent.” Unfortunately for Valentine the odds he could get the virus have caught up with him. He is now seriously ill in a hospital on oxygen. Phil’s brother says, from his hospital bed, Valentine now “regrets” his comments. A little late for that isn’t it buddy? Phil has learned the hard lesson that neither Covid-19 nor the Delta variant respect your political persuasion. Those in the right-wing world are living in a delusional alternate universe of denial if they think otherwise. Let’s hope Valentine recovers–although he will probably face long tern health problems. Perhaps he can use his experience as a teaching moment and when/if he gets back on the air the first words out of his mouth should be: “Guys and gals out there. I was wrong. If you are unvaccinated you need to get your shots ASAP!”

    1. Dennis:
      We’ll if he dies he’ll do so as a free man who lived by rules he himself set. If he lives, he was, of course, correct. You, on the other hand, adopt the slave mentality with gusto and think it a win to still live. Read Patrick Henry about that approach.

    2. Phil Valentine, ~60 years old, could be considered in the high-risk group. He got Covid, so his illness is an anecdote. We can point to a woman in the low-risk group. She died from the vaccine and is an anecdote as well. Where do you think that gets you?

      The anecdotes leave you with a big nothing. Better decisions are made when the government is open and honest. This administration isn’t. Instead of science leading us, this government has placed politics ahead of science and has failed its mission to protect the public.

    3. This is an interesting anecdote that has absolutely nothing to do Turkey’s point

    4. More liberals are “anti-vaxxers” than conservatives. This is proven by the distribution of vaccinations among populations that are mostly Democrat, such as Hispanics and African Americans where much less than 50% and as few as 25% are vaccinated. Same is true in New York City, which also has less than 50% vaccination rates despite being 90%+ Democrat. Sorry friend, this is not a Red versus Blue issue, though you might want it to be so. Here is a study that makes the same point, from a different perspective

    5. “Phil’s brother says, from his hospital bed, Valentine now “regrets” his comments. A little late for that isn’t it buddy?”

      Aren’t you a precious peach. A little smart ass troll. Nothing Phil Valentine was misinformation of lies.

    6. Which makes me very thankful that I and my Wife and Daughter, had COVID in October, and recovered, so I don’t have to make an informed consent decision on the vaccine.

  11. One thing Alex Berenson can be faulted on is not supplying a link to the original report, which is found on this page (including links to PDFs of the full report and the supplementary appendix):

    The causes of death on the vax and placebo sides are fully reported on p.12 of the supplementary appendix.
    Regardless of whether vax or placebo was administered, the total number of deaths is small, suggesting that CoViD-19 is perhaps not the ferocious scourge of mankind that some portray it to be. If CoViD-19 was seriously deadly but the vaxxine highly efficacious, then then one would expect many more deaths on the placebo side. As it is, 1 death on the vax side was attributed to COVID-19 pneumonia, and 2 deaths on the placebo side were attributed to COVID-19. This, out of nearly 44,000 participants total.

    1. Thanks Olde Edo. Those interested in promoting the vaccine and attacking those who say the risks of it outweigh the potential benefits to them will present this as showing that deaths among the unvaccinated are 100% higher.

    2. Self-reply to Olde Edo 1 Aug 2021 @ 7AM:
      This site doesn’t let me post links, although other comments have links with no problem….Please tell me the format to post links!!!

      In the meantime, here is the link to the original scientific paper;
      and if that doesn’t show up, try this explanation:


      Convert capitalized words to the corresponding symbols, and concatenate everything into one line, removing linebreaks and without adding whitespace to the line.

    3. Sorry – but you’re missing the point. By not pointing out that the numbers referenced all cause mortality and as such, weren’t particularly informative as to the efficacy of the vaccines (which is the larger context of Alex’s advocacy), Alex was using the numbers to convey a misleading message (that they vaccines aren’t efficacious).

  12. “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.” — Jonathan Turley

    There is a word for this — fascism.

    1. Right. But if Turley accurately describes the collusion between corporations and government to censor speech as fascism, those on the authoritarian Left who favor corporate censorship of political dissidents will obsess about his use of the word fascism to describe them. They’ll make up all kinds of excuses and rationalizations explaining why it’s not fascism.

      In other words, the use of that one word – while entirely accurate – risks shifting the focus away from the substantive issue that government and corporations are colluding to censor speech.

      Actually, much of the time it appears that computer algorithms are doing the censoring on behalf of the corporations and government.

      A crude way of thinking about it is that robots/artificial intelligence are in charge and they are censoring the thoughts and speech of human beings.

  13. Emergency Saturday Broadcast! CDC Warns COVID Vaccine Causing 74% Of New Cases



    Jul 31, 2021
    The Alex Jones Show
    The Alex Jones Show

    British government warns vaccine created super strain could kill 2.6 billion people.

    Save 33% on our new Organic Greens Fiber Caps today!

    1. I’m not part of this group but think people should search out Doctor they might be able to trust or at least get a 2nd opinion:

      America’s Frontline Doctors
      [Search domain]
      If you miss the telemed call, you can either wait for the second call (which will come), send an email to, or call their customer service at (855) 503-2657 . Click on the Contact A Physician button. Fill out the form and pay $90. The physician will call you typically within 24 to 48 hours.
      How Can I Get Medicine for COVID-19? Find out how to obtain…
      America’s Frontline Doctors, a project of the Free Speech Foundation,…

  14. “Internet Originalism”, i.e. a free Internet, brought us Brexit and Trump. Ergo, the free Internet can never be allowed to exist again.

  15. Much in the news is the CDC’s response to the massive COVID super spreader event in Provincetown that infected nearly 500 local residents. The research study helpfully points out that the Provincetown is a national tourist hotspot with close-packed bars, restaurants, and guest houses. Yet the CDC and the Democrat media go to great pains to avoid pointing out that Provincetown is a gay tourist mecca, one that likely has a different set of social norms than widely reviled, irresponsible activities like taking communion in a Catholic church or vacationing with one’s family in Florida. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld might say.

    A natural, but forbidden, question is how these rather unique set of conditions contributed to the Provincetown cluster and the transmission of COVID among the participants and to 500 local residents. Perhaps the science might teach us that the lessons of Provincetown aren’t broadly applicable to the vast majority of social and personal settings. Yet even asking the question is a taboo that is censored from polite Progressive discourse, let alone Twitter or Facebook. Much like questioning how the widespread importation of untested, unvaccinated and COVID positive illegals at the Mexican border squares with moral panic over COVID and the widespread demands for mandatory vaccination of the American people. All while the CDC conspires with the teachers unions to require that children be forced to wear masks as a condition of attending school.

    These are serious public health questions to which the Biden administration and the CDC owe the American public a direct, honest answer. The country needs real science and open discussion, not political science and censorship. If that is something that our current leadership can’t provide, they should resign or be removed from office.

    1. Fecal transmission? The rectum is part of the digestive tract and perfectly suited for that purpose, and, incidentally for viral exchange during anal intrusion. This could be the HIV/AIDS pandemic in socially liberal trans/homosexual male populations and Democrat cover-up of collateral damage from socially progressive policies all over again. Well, that, and “fat is beautiful” and “healthy at any weight”, metabolically compromisedd in 80% of cases, and year-over-year excess deaths in planned parent/hood facilities and practices. Also, mask mandates with random effect at best, and progressive infections at worst; preexisting viral tranmission under lockdown conditions; 6x greater mortality rate and higher viral titer in full vaccinated individuals infected with the delta variant; and non-sterilizing vaccines distributed to the general population (the majority of whom were either immune or resistant to infection and disease progression) forcing viral evolution that favors spread over abortion of its victims.

    2. Bingo. Frankly, I was surprised that the CDC report even devoted a single sentence to the potential demographic implications. There was a related footnote suggesting a ~6% HIV-positive rate among the infected. If the close-contact outdoor events weren’t enough to attain super-spreader status, then certainly the time spent within shared housing units which were reportedly filthy could have made an impact. That’s before we even begin to imagine the other activities that may have occurred during that week-long festival. Reflecting on the proclivities of the AIDS patient zero, the Law of Kevin Bacon likely played out repeatedly among the festival attendees.

      To be fully transparent, I am generally inclined to think that the vaccinated transmit as much if not more than the unvaccinated, whether that’s because of a naturally higher viral load or perhaps due to their careless behaviors driven by a false sense of security. However, the Provincetown example leads me to believe that we have barely scratched the surface. Without a doubt, the various health administrations (including Fauci himself) already have a record of downplaying real risk factors for infectious diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDS). What happened in Massachusetts should not be assumed to be representative of the general population and sure as hell should not be used to make recommendations for K-12 public school policies.

  16. It Can’t Happen Here
    by Sinclair Lewis

    Sinclair Lewis’s novel of 1935, It Can’t Happen Here, was published amid the rise of fascism in Europe. The book is about the political career of fictional Buzz Windrip, who is elected President in 1936, defeating FDR with a campaign promising a return to traditional values, drastic social and economic reforms (he promises every American $5k). Once elected, he becomes a totalitarian tyrant complete with his own paramilitary force called the Minute Men!

    Windrip is Lewis’s version of an American Hitler and/or Mussolini. But consider the parallels with the current occupant of the Oval Office. Windrip outlaws dissent (consider the Biden administration’s partnership with big tech to censor opposing opinions). He, Windrip, imprisons his critics just as Biden has jailed anyone present at the Capitol on January 6. Biden has his own Minute Men, the FBI as well a couple of other paramilitary groups in service of his agenda – Antifa and BLM. They are his shock troops that, like Windrip’s thugs, terrorize his opponents, freedom-loving, independent thinking Americans.


  17. Jonathan: Your defense of Alex Berenson after his suspension from Twitter fits a pattern. Anyone who appears on Fox gets your back–that’s because you want to continue your paid gig there. First, let’s get some facts straight. Berenson worked for the NY Times between 1999 and 2010 as a writer. He was never the Times “science reporter”. He has no medical or scientific training or experience. He graduated from Yale with a BA in history and economics and is now a novelist. So it is misleading for you to imply Berenson has some “science” background to try to justify his unfounded claims about the coronavirus.

    Since April of last year Berenson has been the right-wing media’s go-to coronavirus skeptic. On April 9 Berenson appeared on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox and bizarrely claimed: “There has been so surge…almost anybody under 30 is at no risk to this–no serious risk from this virus”. Hannity was taken aback and pointed out that was a surge in hospitalizations in NY–even among the under 30 crowd. But Berenson persisted saying: “We need reporters who are–not just [making] things as bad as possible”. Now Hannity is one of the few on FOX calling on everyone to get vaccinated. We know that Covid, and in particular the Delta variant, doesn’t discriminate by age. Even young children have become infected. For those under 30 the chance of dying from the virus is relatively small but they can suffer from long-term symptoms and disabilities. Of those fully vaccinated only 18% are between 18 to 29. If a young person watched Berenson on Fox they probably naively believed they were impervious and that is why they have refused to get vaccinated. Ignorance is bliss for the under 30 crowd who walked unmasked along Miami Beach during the Spring Break in March. There was a surge in infections of those who wanted to enjoy the sun and surf without masks or social distancing. So Berenson’s false advice to the under 30 crowd is having in many cases deadly consequences. That’s why Berenson’s misinformation and that of other coronavirus skeptics about the virus and pandemic restrictions are so dangerous. The only question is why it took Twitter so long to suspend Berenson.

    You admit you have no background to “judge the science”. Then how can you possibly defend Berenson and his spurious non-scientific claims? You say you were “eager” to get yourself and your family vaccinated. That’s because you understood the dangers from remaining unvaccinated. But now you want us to take seriously Berenson’s false and misleading information about the virus. Doesn’t make any rationale sense and why no one should treat your column seriously. Those of us who trust the science have been vaccinated. And if mask requirements are re-imposed we will readily comply because we want to protect not just ourselves and our families but also our fellow citizens. It’s called “social responsibility”–a concept that is alien to Berenson.

    1. Funny how the left attacks, shames and doxes any lawyers, doctors, scientists etc who happened to be liberal, but who actually have ethics and don’t just tow the party line. That’s funny isn’t it?

    2. Antibody dependent enhancement as the vaccine wanes. Read about it. You don’t need to be a dr to read and comprehend. Listen to Dr Robert Malone, who invented the MRA vaccine.

    3. The issue is censorship. One is more likely to be censored if he or she (1) has an audience, and (2) is taking a position unfavored by those in power.

      “Those of us who trust the science …” Did you read the published study? The difference in deaths between vaccinated and unvaccinated was a whopping 1, as in ONE, and it was a big study.

    4. A ‘surge’ in infections is not the same as a surge in deaths.Hyped arguments are not facts,but mere conjecture.The CDC has blamed the reluctance of southern citizens to get the covid injections as a big part of the current ‘surge’,yet they use a cluster of infections,not deaths,in New England as justification for a new panic about covid.People are perfectly capable of assessing their own risk and making their own decision on health care choices.Nobody needs hype more than facts.Nobody in the real world benefits from censorship over the free flow of information.Grow up and realize that the world doesn’t have to agree with you.

    5. Berenson is Jewish and a self-avowed liberal, same as Progressive Glenn Greenwald who runs Substack, but had to move to Brazil to avoid liberal “screaming Blue Meanies”. More liberals are “anti-vaxxers” than conservatives. This is proven by the distribution of vaccinations among populations that are mostly Democrat, such as Hispanics and African Americans where much less than 50% and as few as 25% are vaccinated. Same is true in New York City, which also has less than 50% vaccination rates despite being 90%+ Democrat. Sorry friend, this is not a Red versus Blue issue, though you might want it to be so. Here is a study that makes the same point, from a different perspective

  18. It’s a magic trick

    Uncle Joe Biden took the bait. China virus Delta mutation is Joe’s administration top priority.

    Meanwhile US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin gives China a pot of gold.

    China’s interest in Afghanistan could be ‘positive’, says US Secretary of State Blinken.

    Just a few more Taliban summary executions & beheadings. And China & Taliban will figure out how to move in ICBMs with nuclear weapons from Pakistan into Afghanistan.

  19. “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.”

    Oh, did they pay for the right to exchange thoughts? No? Then whichever Internet overlord owns the platform gets to choose what goes in the conversation. It’s called ownership, for your information.

    Things can only be free in the sense of paying no money for them, or free in the sense that you can do anything you like with them. You can’t have something that is free both ways, because some people will always, always abuse those things. Aint such thing as a free lunch, libertarians used to say.

    I do remember the original Internet. I was there.

    I also remember what destroyed the original Internet. It was exactly people like the author of this article. Back in the day, we called them “trolls”. We developed all sorts of ingenious tricks that we believed would leave trolls out of the conversation and let reasonable people exchange ideas.

    In the end, we had to admit defeat. The trolls won. When somebody was determined to confuse or hurt people, they usually proved that they could do it. Freedom of speech was an impossible dream in the free Internet. The good guys didn’t win.

    Then we moved to moderation. We thought we could do it. Just every site or platform owner take care of their own trolls. It seemed to work for a while.

    Then social media came up, and they couldn’t control their own trolls. It was just too free in both ways.

    Some sites can be free in the sense of free access without payment. Others can be free in the sense of free interaction. You just can’t have both, or you’ll get people willing to troll the site for their own purposes, be it fun, propaganda, sadistic pleasure in hoping to destroy the lives of people they don’t like, or any other of the reasons people have for trolling.

    1. You have failed miserably to prove that Berenson is any kind of troll. You simply disagree with him, and you can’t defend your beliefs with actual facts and logic, so you want to censor him. Your position is just as illogical and fallacious as any ad hominem.

  20. Twitters and other illustrious (Web Masters??) censorship of opposition views are demonstrative of most despotic moves in history.

    First you must gain the trust of the masses, becoming the go to place where individuals seek information. In days past the public listened to town criers in the town square, and then came newspapers, then the radio, then television and now the net. The internet’s first iteration the net was open with a Wild West attitude (anything goes), then restraints started to close in on what was available caused by fraud, other criminal activities, and pornography. Then came calls for censorship of political speech under the moniker of hate, racial, environmental and many other ideas or points of view. The current iteration is now calling opposing views disinformation as adjudicated by the tyrants who control the majority of the internet paths.

    A resent great example is, “Fracking Oil and Gas Wells”. The neophytes knew little to nothing of the technique to enhance production from oil and gas wells, claiming it was a new method and would harm the environment. This disinformation was cast about without consideration of the truth. You see, “Fracking” was first deployed in 1865 by Edward A.L. Roberts with explosives, fracking advanced to hydraulic fracturing in the 1940’s by Stanolind Oil and Gas, Stanolind Oil’s efforts didn’t show great results. In 1949 Halliburton started experimentation in Oklahoma with great results and fracking became ubiquitous across many basins in the West including Piceance, San Juan, Denver and Green River as examples. The modern day method called ubiquitously “FRACKING” is just an enhanced method to frack horizontals wells that was developed by George Mitchell in the 1990’s.

    The brilliant neophytes of the environmental movement and the controllers of many web sites would not allow this information to be posted and have continued to claim it as disinformation, why, because it does not fit their desired view on the environment.

    When history (good, bad or indifferent) is banned you must ask WHY. I can’t answer that question but what I have observed is Tyranny is now upon us.

Comments are closed.