Since its publication in pre-print, the Stabell-Benn study has received very little coverage in the media. It offers a potential contributory explanation for the better overall mortality outcomes in the UK (which overwhelmingly used the AZ vaccine) than much of continental Europe (which phased out the AZ vaccine) after the vaccine programme in the second half of 2021. In other words, the international move to de-authorise the AstraZeneca vaccine across Europe and elsewhere looks like it may have been a mistake, and that AZ was actually a better option than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Stabell Benn and her colleagues have now looked at overall mortality for the first time.Īt the very least, the plain implication (since both sets of vaccines are available) is that public health authorities should have recommended the cheaper adenovector vaccines over the mRNA vaccines all along for most patients. From a public health perspective, prevention of covid symptoms is not as important as prevention of death or disease transmission, which the randomized trials did not study. From a purely scientific perspective, preventing symptomatic covid is an interesting outcome to study. Wikipedia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.However, these preliminary results stand in sharp contrast to the unambiguous message from public health agencies and governments worldwide, which granted emergency authorization to the vaccines based on evidence from the trials that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of getting symptomatic covid. “There’s a global enforcement of a certain point of view on issues like COVID,” he insisted, calling it “amazing to me as a libertarian, or a liberty-loving conservative.” ![]() “There’s a lot of Nobel prize winners and distinguished doctors whose views are not only not welcome on Wikipedia - they’re literally censored on YouTube and sometimes Facebook and Twitter because they contradict the narrative,” he said. Anthony Fauci as well as government health groups in its coverage of COVID-19. And what little can be found is extremely biased and reads like a defense counsel’s brief,” he said.Īnd it’s not just politics, he said, noting that the site only reflects “establishment mouthpieces” like Dr. “Very little of that can be found in Wikipedia. He noted there was just a short paragraph on the “Ukraine scandal” involving the president’s son, Hunter, despite the political outrage it created. “You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues. “So if you want to have anything remotely resembling the Republican point of view about Biden, you’re not going to get it from the article,” he said. The Wikipedia co-founder cited the entry for President Biden, noting that it “has very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him.” Sanger said there are “all sorts of tricks people can play to win it,” including the use of dedicated PR companies to influence listings. “There’s a very big, nasty, complex game being played behind the scenes to make the article say what somebody wants them to say. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales Alamy Stock Photo “If only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power,” he said. Now you can only rely on the site to “to give an establishment point of view,” rather than the diverse range of opinions it was set up to give, he insisted. “It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream centre-left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia,” he said. It’s just banned now,” he insisted of the apparent clampdown on respected conservative voices. ![]() Now, he insisted, conservative voices are “sternly warned if not kicked out” if they try to add a different take on establishment views - which Sanger deemed “propaganda.” Sanger told UnHerd’s Lockdown TV Wednesday that he started the “encyclopedia of opinion” in 2001 purely on the basis it would offer true neutrality and offer “multiple points of view” on “hot button issues.” Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted - insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.” Why Russia is threatening to ban Wikipedia over Ukraine war Wikipedia deletes entry for Hunter Biden investment firm Rosemont Seneca Partners ![]() Joe Biden sure looks like he’s lying about Hunter’s biz Elon Musk blasts Wikipedia after it suspends edits of ‘recession’ page
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |